Myth: 1 G barrel rolls are impossible.

[Jim Logajan]

Myth:

It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot feels exactly
1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the cockpit. (Barrel roll is
defined here as the maneuver depicted by the definitions and diagrams on
these website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_roll
http://www.flightsimbooks.com/jfs/page74.php
http://home.comcast.net/~john.schneider9/barrel_roll.jpg )

Fact:

The aspect that I think appears to mislead people is the presence of a
gravitational field and an implied requirement that the axis of the helix
must remain straight and parallel with the (flat) ground. But the latter
requirement can be dispensed with and still yield a recognizable helical
flight path - and that is enough to make a 1 gee barrel roll possible. The
"trick" is accomplished by superimposing two equations of motion:

(1) Start with a "zero gee" parabolic trajectory. So basically the plane
travels laterally over the ground while first traveling up (and then down)
such that the pilot would feel weightless absent any other motions. The arc
is a classic parabola.

(2) Superimpose by vector addition the centrifugal force of the plane
"flying" a circle around (and along) the moving center established by the
parabolic trajectory in (1).

(3) Set the radius and angular speed of the circle in (2) to yield one gee
equivalent force and rotate plane's attitude to keep the centrifugal force
vector perpendicular to the floor. End of procedure.

A reasonable nit pick is that the axis of the helix of the barrel roll
doesn't remain "straight and level." But none of the definitions explicitly
state that requirement. And in any case, it is possible to end the 1 G
barrel roll at the same altitude at which it began.

So there. :-)

(If there is a demand (and I can find more time) I can work out and post
the complete set of equations of motion.)

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jun 11, 11:09 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Myth:
>
> It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot feels exactly
> 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the cockpit. (Barrel roll is
> defined here as the maneuver depicted by the definitions and diagrams on
> these website:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_rollhttp://www.flightsimbooks.com/jfs/page74.phphttp://home.comcast.net/~john.schneider9/barrel_roll.jpg)
>
> Fact:
>
> The aspect that I think appears to mislead people is the presence of a
> gravitational field and an implied requirement that the axis of the helix
> must remain straight and parallel with the (flat) ground. But the latter
> requirement can be dispensed with and still yield a recognizable helical
> flight path - and that is enough to make a 1 gee barrel roll possible. The
> "trick" is accomplished by superimposing two equations of motion:
>
> (1) Start with a "zero gee" parabolic trajectory. So basically the plane
> travels laterally over the ground while first traveling up (and then down)
> such that the pilot would feel weightless absent any other motions. The arc
> is a classic parabola.
>
> (2) Superimpose by vector addition the centrifugal force of the plane
> "flying" a circle around (and along) the moving center established by the
> parabolic trajectory in (1).
>
> (3) Set the radius and angular speed of the circle in (2) to yield one gee
> equivalent force and rotate plane's attitude to keep the centrifugal force
> vector perpendicular to the floor. End of procedure.
>
> A reasonable nit pick is that the axis of the helix of the barrel roll
> doesn't remain "straight and level." But none of the definitions explicitly
> state that requirement. And in any case, it is possible to end the 1 G
> barrel roll at the same altitude at which it began.
>
> So there. :-)
>
> (If there is a demand (and I can find more time) I can work out and post
> the complete set of equations of motion.)

Did I miss some context? Was there a debate about this? There are
videos on youtube of people doing barrel rolls with a cup of coffee in
their lap.

-robert

[Jim Logajan]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> Did I miss some context? Was there a debate about this? There are
> videos on youtube of people doing barrel rolls with a cup of coffee in
> their lap.

Most everyone agrees that keeping the coffee in the cup is possible. What
some people don't seem to believe is possible is that the force felt by the
pilot (or tea/coffee) can be 1 gee during the entire roll. They believe it
has to vary during the roll. I'm hesitant to name names. ;-)

So yeah, I think there is some need to clear the air.

[john smith]

> (If there is a demand (and I can find more time) I can work out and post
> the complete set of equations of motion.)

Um... I cannot visualize this. Could you produce an animated computer
graphic that depicts the flight path and g-loading throughout the maneuver?

[Just kidding!!!]

Thanks.

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:05:24 -0400, john smith > wrote:

>> (If there is a demand (and I can find more time) I can work out and post
>> the complete set of equations of motion.)
>
>Um... I cannot visualize this. Could you produce an animated computer
>graphic that depicts the flight path and g-loading throughout the maneuver?
>
>[Just kidding!!!]
>
I'd settle for a description of the control inputs.

(also kidding)

Don

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> Myth:
>
> It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot feels exactly
> 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the cockpit.

No maneuver that involves a change in altitude can maintain exactly 1 G along
the net acceleration vector (including perpendicular to the cockpit floor).
This is not a myth, it's a fact.

The only roll you can perform that does not involve more than 1 G of net
acceleration is one that involves no change in altitude, such as a roll
precisely about the longitudinal axis. But no roll that maintains the net
acceleration vector perpendicular to the cockpit floor is in this category.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> Most everyone agrees that keeping the coffee in the cup is possible. What
> some people don't seem to believe is possible is that the force felt by the
> pilot (or tea/coffee) can be 1 gee during the entire roll. They believe it
> has to vary during the roll. I'm hesitant to name names. ;-)

It has to vary during the roll, because the constant 1 G acceleration due to
gravity does not change. The net acceleration of the aircraft must always be
at least one G in consequence, and if the aircraft begins a climb or ends a
descent, it _must_ be greater than +1.0 G.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 11, 1:54 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
> > Most everyone agrees that keeping the coffee in the cup is possible. What
> > some people don't seem to believe is possible is that the force felt by the
> > pilot (or tea/coffee) can be 1 gee during the entire roll. They believe it
> > has to vary during the roll. I'm hesitant to name names. ;-)
>
> It has to vary during the roll, because the constant 1 G acceleration due to
> gravity does not change. The net acceleration of the aircraft must always be
> at least one G in consequence, and if the aircraft begins a climb or ends a
> descent, it _must_ be greater than +1.0 G.

Bertie! He's doing it again!!!!

[george]

On Jun 12, 9:00 am, wrote:
> On Jun 11, 1:54 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Jim Logajan writes:
> > > Most everyone agrees that keeping the coffee in the cup is possible. What
> > > some people don't seem to believe is possible is that the force felt by the
> > > pilot (or tea/coffee) can be 1 gee during the entire roll. They believe it
> > > has to vary during the roll. I'm hesitant to name names. ;-)
>
> > It has to vary during the roll, because the constant 1 G acceleration due to
> > gravity does not change. The net acceleration of the aircraft must always be
> > at least one G in consequence, and if the aircraft begins a climb or ends a
> > descent, it _must_ be greater than +1.0 G.
>
> Bertie! He's doing it again!!!!

Well you have to admit where he does his 'aerobatics' he is under 1g
constantly
ROTFL
Where we do aerobatics its somewhat different as we do them in
aeroplanes...

[alexy]

Jim Logajan > wrote:

>Myth:
>
>It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot feels exactly
>1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the cockpit. (Barrel roll is
>defined here as the maneuver depicted by the definitions and diagrams on
>these website:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_roll
>http://www.flightsimbooks.com/jfs/page74.php
>http://home.comcast.net/~john.schneider9/barrel_roll.jpg )
>
>Fact:
>
>The aspect that I think appears to mislead people is the presence of a
>gravitational field and an implied requirement that the axis of the helix
>must remain straight and parallel with the (flat) ground. But the latter
>requirement can be dispensed with and still yield a recognizable helical
>flight path - and that is enough to make a 1 gee barrel roll possible. The
>"trick" is accomplished by superimposing two equations of motion:
>
>(1) Start with a "zero gee" parabolic trajectory. So basically the plane
>travels laterally over the ground while first traveling up (and then down)
>such that the pilot would feel weightless absent any other motions. The arc
>is a classic parabola.
>
>(2) Superimpose by vector addition the centrifugal force of the plane
>"flying" a circle around (and along) the moving center established by the
>parabolic trajectory in (1).
>
>(3) Set the radius and angular speed of the circle in (2) to yield one gee
>equivalent force and rotate plane's attitude to keep the centrifugal force
>vector perpendicular to the floor. End of procedure.
>
>A reasonable nit pick is that the axis of the helix of the barrel roll
>doesn't remain "straight and level." But none of the definitions explicitly
>state that requirement. And in any case, it is possible to end the 1 G
>barrel roll at the same altitude at which it began.
>
>So there. :-)
>
>(If there is a demand (and I can find more time) I can work out and post
>the complete set of equations of motion.)
I wonder if the "confusion" may be whether one considers the barrel
roll to include transition from and return to level flight.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Myth:
>
> It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot feels exactly
> 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the cockpit. (Barrel roll is
> defined here as the maneuver depicted by the definitions and diagrams on
> these website:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_roll
> http://www.flightsimbooks.com/jfs/page74.php
> http://home.comcast.net/~john.schneider9/barrel_roll.jpg )
>
> Fact:
>
> The aspect that I think appears to mislead people is the presence of a
> gravitational field and an implied requirement that the axis of the helix
> must remain straight and parallel with the (flat) ground. But the latter
> requirement can be dispensed with and still yield a recognizable helical
> flight path - and that is enough to make a 1 gee barrel roll possible. The
> "trick" is accomplished by superimposing two equations of motion:
>
> (1) Start with a "zero gee" parabolic trajectory. So basically the plane
> travels laterally over the ground while first traveling up (and then down)
> such that the pilot would feel weightless absent any other motions. The arc
> is a classic parabola.

You have to pull more than 1 G (what is a gee anyway?) to enter the
parabolic trajectory so you've flunked already! :-)


> (2) Superimpose by vector addition the centrifugal force of the plane
> "flying" a circle around (and along) the moving center established by the
> parabolic trajectory in (1).
>
> (3) Set the radius and angular speed of the circle in (2) to yield one gee
> equivalent force and rotate plane's attitude to keep the centrifugal force
> vector perpendicular to the floor. End of procedure.
>
> A reasonable nit pick is that the axis of the helix of the barrel roll
> doesn't remain "straight and level." But none of the definitions explicitly
> state that requirement. And in any case, it is possible to end the 1 G
> barrel roll at the same altitude at which it began.
>
> So there. :-)
>
> (If there is a demand (and I can find more time) I can work out and post
> the complete set of equations of motion.)


I'd like to see it. And you have to start straight and level and end
straight and level. :-)

Matt

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> Myth:
>>
>> It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot feels
>> exactly 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the cockpit.
>
> No maneuver that involves a change in altitude can maintain exactly 1
> G along the net acceleration vector (including perpendicular to the
> cockpit floor). This is not a myth, it's a fact.

Do you see the word "acceleration" anywhere in my "myth" statement? I have
no idea what it is you think you are trying to say, but it has nothing to
do with the myth I am attempting to debunk.

You appear to be confusing acceleration and force (you appear at times to
treat them as the same thing), among other faults in your thinking. If
taken literally, all your statements regarding the physics of the situation
are incorrect.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>
>>Most everyone agrees that keeping the coffee in the cup is possible. What
>>some people don't seem to believe is possible is that the force felt by the
>>pilot (or tea/coffee) can be 1 gee during the entire roll. They believe it
>>has to vary during the roll. I'm hesitant to name names. ;-)
>
>
> It has to vary during the roll, because the constant 1 G acceleration due to
> gravity does not change. The net acceleration of the aircraft must always be
> at least one G in consequence, and if the aircraft begins a climb or ends a
> descent, it _must_ be greater than +1.0 G.

With any luck your monitor will fall on you.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>
>>Myth:
>>
>>It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot feels exactly
>>1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the cockpit.
>
>
> No maneuver that involves a change in altitude can maintain exactly 1 G along
> the net acceleration vector (including perpendicular to the cockpit floor).
> This is not a myth, it's a fact.
>
> The only roll you can perform that does not involve more than 1 G of net
> acceleration is one that involves no change in altitude, such as a roll
> precisely about the longitudinal axis. But no roll that maintains the net
> acceleration vector perpendicular to the cockpit floor is in this category.

Maybe it'll fall at 10 Gs and do me a favor.

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> Most everyone agrees that keeping the coffee in the cup is possible.
>> What some people don't seem to believe is possible is that the force
>> felt by the pilot (or tea/coffee) can be 1 gee during the entire
>> roll. They believe it has to vary during the roll. I'm hesitant to
>> name names. ;-)
>
> It has to vary during the roll, because the constant 1 G acceleration
> due to gravity does not change. The net acceleration of the aircraft
> must always be at least one G in consequence, and if the aircraft
> begins a climb or ends a descent, it _must_ be greater than +1.0 G.

Sigh. Yes, the force that is felt is greater then one g-force at the
beginning and end of the maneuver. But that is not the case "during the
roll" itself. Again, as in the other post of yours I responded to, you
appear to be confusing force and acceleration.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> Myth:
>>
>> It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot feels
>> exactly
>> 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the cockpit.
>
> No maneuver that involves a change in altitude can maintain exactly 1 G
> along
> the net acceleration vector (including perpendicular to the cockpit
> floor).
> This is not a myth, it's a fact.
>
> The only roll you can perform that does not involve more than 1 G of net
> acceleration is one that involves no change in altitude, such as a roll
> precisely about the longitudinal axis. But no roll that maintains the net
> acceleration vector perpendicular to the cockpit floor is in this
> category.

God I love it when you so certainly prove your ignorance!!!!

You made my day!!!!

[Maxwell]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...


>
> I'd like to see it. And you have to start straight and level and end
> straight and level. :-)
>

No, as a matter of fact, you don't have to start straight and level, or end
striaght and level to do a full roll.

The man is not posting a puzzle, he is stating a hard fact.

Reread his post.

[Maxwell]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Myth:
>
> It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot feels
> exactly
> 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the cockpit. (Barrel roll is
> defined here as the maneuver depicted by the definitions and diagrams on
> these website:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_roll
> http://www.flightsimbooks.com/jfs/page74.php
> http://home.comcast.net/~john.schneider9/barrel_roll.jpg )
>
> Fact:
>
> The aspect that I think appears to mislead people is the presence of a
> gravitational field and an implied requirement that the axis of the helix
> must remain straight and parallel with the (flat) ground. But the latter
> requirement can be dispensed with and still yield a recognizable helical
> flight path - and that is enough to make a 1 gee barrel roll possible. The
> "trick" is accomplished by superimposing two equations of motion:
>
> (1) Start with a "zero gee" parabolic trajectory. So basically the plane
> travels laterally over the ground while first traveling up (and then down)
> such that the pilot would feel weightless absent any other motions. The
> arc
> is a classic parabola.
>
> (2) Superimpose by vector addition the centrifugal force of the plane
> "flying" a circle around (and along) the moving center established by the
> parabolic trajectory in (1).
>
> (3) Set the radius and angular speed of the circle in (2) to yield one gee
> equivalent force and rotate plane's attitude to keep the centrifugal force
> vector perpendicular to the floor. End of procedure.
>
> A reasonable nit pick is that the axis of the helix of the barrel roll
> doesn't remain "straight and level." But none of the definitions
> explicitly
> state that requirement. And in any case, it is possible to end the 1 G
> barrel roll at the same altitude at which it began.
>
> So there. :-)
>
> (If there is a demand (and I can find more time) I can work out and post
> the complete set of equations of motion.)

Excellent post Jim, thanks. I saw this come up in another thread last week
or so, and didn't want to take the time to debate it. But reared it's head
again.

Excellent example. I hope people will take time to read and understand the
message before making a fool of themselves.

[mike regish]

The few that I've done, and it is only a few, the g forces were noticeably
less at the top of the roll. I was still pressing into the seat, but not as
much. Just as in a loop, the g forces are lower at the top of the loop.

mike

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan writes:
>>
>>> Most everyone agrees that keeping the coffee in the cup is possible.
>>> What some people don't seem to believe is possible is that the force
>>> felt by the pilot (or tea/coffee) can be 1 gee during the entire
>>> roll. They believe it has to vary during the roll. I'm hesitant to
>>> name names. ;-)
>>
>> It has to vary during the roll, because the constant 1 G acceleration
>> due to gravity does not change. The net acceleration of the aircraft
>> must always be at least one G in consequence, and if the aircraft
>> begins a climb or ends a descent, it _must_ be greater than +1.0 G.
>
> Sigh. Yes, the force that is felt is greater then one g-force at the
> beginning and end of the maneuver. But that is not the case "during the
> roll" itself. Again, as in the other post of yours I responded to, you
> appear to be confusing force and acceleration.

[mike regish]

In which the pilot always experiences "positive" G forces, but not constant
1 g. That seems to be the argument here. It varies throughout the maneuver.

mike

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Did I miss some context? Was there a debate about this? There are
> videos on youtube of people doing barrel rolls with a cup of coffee in
> their lap.
>
> -robert
>

[Bob Moore]

Jim Logajan wrote
> Most everyone agrees that keeping the coffee in the cup is possible.
> What some people don't seem to believe is possible is that the force
> felt by the pilot (or tea/coffee) can be 1 gee during the entire roll.
> They believe it has to vary during the roll. I'm hesitant to name
> names. ;-)

My name is Bob Moore :-)

Just what is a barrel roll has been debated between "Big John", Dudley,
and myself at least twice in the past. It IS difficult to describe
without having a model airplane in one's hand and flying it through the
maneuver.

How come you don't seem to belive the following from Wikipedia?

Barrel roll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the aerial sport. For the military operation, see
Operation Barrel Roll.
A barrel roll occurs when an object (usually an airplane or roller coaster)
makes a complete rotation on its longitudinal axis while following a
helical path, approximately maintaining its original direction. The G load
is kept positive (but not constant) on the aircraft throughout the
maneuver, commonly not more than 2-3 G.

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.

From:
http://acro.harvard.edu

The Barrel Roll is a not competition maneuver. 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.

[Jim Logajan]

"mike regish" > wrote:
> The few that I've done, and it is only a few, the g forces were
> noticeably less at the top of the roll. I was still pressing into the
> seat, but not as much. Just as in a loop, the g forces are lower at
> the top of the loop.

That seems reasonable. I should try to clarify that the maneuver I
described is what I believe is theoretically possible.

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-11 18:41:50 -0400, "mike regish" > said:

> The few that I've done, and it is only a few, the g forces were noticeably
> less at the top of the roll. I was still pressing into the seat, but not as
> much. Just as in a loop, the g forces are lower at the top of the loop.
>
> mike
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> Jim Logajan writes:
>>>
>>>> Most everyone agrees that keeping the coffee in the cup is possible.
>>>> What some people don't seem to believe is possible is that the force
>>>> felt by the pilot (or tea/coffee) can be 1 gee during the entire
>>>> roll. They believe it has to vary during the roll. I'm hesitant to
>>>> name names. ;-)
>>>
>>> It has to vary during the roll, because the constant 1 G acceleration
>>> due to gravity does not change. The net acceleration of the aircraft
>>> must always be at least one G in consequence, and if the aircraft
>>> begins a climb or ends a descent, it _must_ be greater than +1.0 G.
>>
>> Sigh. Yes, the force that is felt is greater then one g-force at the
>> beginning and end of the maneuver. But that is not the case "during the
>> roll" itself. Again, as in the other post of yours I responded to, you
>> appear to be confusing force and acceleration.

Easing off the g through the apex is called "the float". You do this
because as soon as the lift vector goes below the horizon you pick up 1
extra +g available. In other words, you can easily tighten up the
maneuver losing the constant arc of the roll if you don't ease off the
g. Same for going over the top in a loop or any maneuver where a
constant arc is desired over the top.
Since the theoretical objective anyway :-) is to keep the roll arc
constant in a barrel roll, you ease off the g through the apex to avoid
picking up that extra 1 positive g available and by doing so tightening
up the roll arc.
So the bottom line is that the positive g does indeed vary through a
barrel roll and it is always at some positive g value with the 1
exception being flying through the float with the wings unloaded. I
should note that in the true sense of explaining a barrel roll, going
to 0 g through the float would be out of the context of a true classic
barrel roll which must remain constant throughout the roll.
Dudley Henriques

[Maxwell]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
46.128...
> My name is Bob Moore :-)
>
> Just what is a barrel roll has been debated between "Big John", Dudley,
> and myself at least twice in the past. It IS difficult to describe
> without having a model airplane in one's hand and flying it through the
> maneuver.
>
> How come you don't seem to belive the following from Wikipedia?
>
> Barrel roll
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
> This article is about the aerial sport. For the military operation, see
> Operation Barrel Roll.
> A barrel roll occurs when an object (usually an airplane or roller
> coaster)
> makes a complete rotation on its longitudinal axis while following a
> helical path, approximately maintaining its original direction. The G load
> is kept positive (but not constant) on the aircraft throughout the
> maneuver, commonly not more than 2-3 G.
>
> 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.
>
> From:
> http://acro.harvard.edu
>
> The Barrel Roll is a not competition maneuver. 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.
>

Then would you label the roll that Jim has described here as a form of
aileron roll, instead of a barrel roll? Or do you think it is possible to
do a 1g aileron roll?

[Jim Logajan]

Bob Moore > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote
>> Most everyone agrees that keeping the coffee in the cup is possible.
>> What some people don't seem to believe is possible is that the force
>> felt by the pilot (or tea/coffee) can be 1 gee during the entire
>> roll. They believe it has to vary during the roll. I'm hesitant to
>> name names. ;-)
>
> My name is Bob Moore :-)

Hi Bob. Glad you could make it to B.R.A. (Barrel Rollers Anonymous.) :-)

> Just what is a barrel roll has been debated between "Big John",
> Dudley, and myself at least twice in the past. It IS difficult to
> describe without having a model airplane in one's hand and flying it
> through the maneuver.
>
> How come you don't seem to belive the following from Wikipedia?

You know what is odd? The flight path of the maneuver I wrote about
appears to violate the Harvard definition you quote (it can't be done in
a straight horizontal path - my corkscrew/helical path must follow a
parabolic arc) but oddly the Wikipedia definition leaves me a big "out."
Straight down. ;-)

Drop the nose straight down so as to make the plane & pilot weightless.
Then start doing horizontal loops so the centrifugal force yields the
equivalent of one gravity of weight. At least the longitudinal axis of
the helical path will maintain a constant direction - but the pilot will
quickly be screwed. :-)

> Barrel roll
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
> This article is about the aerial sport. For the military operation,
> see Operation Barrel Roll.
> A barrel roll occurs when an object (usually an airplane or roller
> coaster) makes a complete rotation on its longitudinal axis while
> following a helical path, approximately maintaining its original
> direction. The G load is kept positive (but not constant) on the
> aircraft throughout the maneuver, commonly not more than 2-3 G.
>
> 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.
>
> From:
> http://acro.harvard.edu
>
> The Barrel Roll is a not competition maneuver. 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.
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> Myth:
>>
>> It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot feels
>> exactly 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the cockpit.
>
> No maneuver that involves a change in altitude can maintain exactly 1
> G along the net acceleration vector (including perpendicular to the
> cockpit floor). This is not a myth, it's a fact.

Shut up fjukkwit.

You don't even know why you're right, monkey boi. .


Bertei

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> Most everyone agrees that keeping the coffee in the cup is possible.
>> What some people don't seem to believe is possible is that the force
>> felt by the pilot (or tea/coffee) can be 1 gee during the entire
>> roll. They believe it has to vary during the roll. I'm hesitant to
>> name names. ;-)
>
> It has to vary during the roll, because the constant 1 G acceleration
> due to gravity does not change. The net acceleration of the aircraft
> must always be at least one G in consequence, and if the aircraft
> begins a climb or ends a descent, it _must_ be greater than +1.0 G.

You're an idiot and you will never ever do a barrel roll.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

wrote in
oups.com:

> On Jun 11, 1:54 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan writes:
>> > Most everyone agrees that keeping the coffee in the cup is
>> > possible. What some people don't seem to believe is possible is
>> > that the force felt by the pilot (or tea/coffee) can be 1 gee
>> > during the entire roll. They believe it has to vary during the
>> > roll. I'm hesitant to name names. ;-)
>>
>> It has to vary during the roll, because the constant 1 G acceleration
>> due to gravity does not change. The net acceleration of the aircraft
>> must always be at least one G in consequence, and if the aircraft
>> begins a climb or ends a descent, it _must_ be greater than +1.0 G.
>
> Bertie! He's doing it again!!!!

Doing what?


He's vaguely right, but only because he's pirating some **** he got off
the net.

I coudl get just as good a response from my pet polecat by taping a page
from Wikepedia to him.



Bertie

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

"No maneuver that involves a change in altitude can maintain exactly 1 G
along
the net acceleration vector (including perpendicular to the cockpit floor)."


Hey, asshole- how about rolls on the vertical, either up or down? The plane
is climbing or descending, while maintaining one g througout. There is no
change in the g forces associated with the roll.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> 46.128...
>> My name is Bob Moore :-)
>>
>> Just what is a barrel roll has been debated between "Big John",
>> Dudley, and myself at least twice in the past. It IS difficult to
>> describe without having a model airplane in one's hand and flying it
>> through the maneuver.
>>
>> How come you don't seem to belive the following from Wikipedia?
>>
>> Barrel roll
>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>
>> This article is about the aerial sport. For the military operation,
>> see Operation Barrel Roll.
>> A barrel roll occurs when an object (usually an airplane or roller
>> coaster)
>> makes a complete rotation on its longitudinal axis while following a
>> helical path, approximately maintaining its original direction. The G
>> load is kept positive (but not constant) on the aircraft throughout
>> the maneuver, commonly not more than 2-3 G.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> From:
>> http://acro.harvard.edu
>>
>> The Barrel Roll is a not competition maneuver. 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.
>>
>
> Then would you label the roll that Jim has described here as a form of
> aileron roll, instead of a barrel roll? Or do you think it is
> possible to do a 1g aileron roll?

It's less of a roll than it is a loop.


In fact, that's how I used to teach it. Get a hula hoop, cut it and pull
the ends apart. you are now looking at the path of a barrel roll. A
skewed loop


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan writes:
>>
>>> Myth:
>>>
>>> It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot feels
>>> exactly 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the cockpit.
>>
>> No maneuver that involves a change in altitude can maintain exactly 1
>> G along the net acceleration vector (including perpendicular to the
>> cockpit floor). This is not a myth, it's a fact.
>
> Do you see the word "acceleration" anywhere in my "myth" statement? I
> have no idea what it is you think you are trying to say,

Neither does he

Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jun 11, 12:54 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
> > Most everyone agrees that keeping the coffee in the cup is possible. What
> > some people don't seem to believe is possible is that the force felt by the
> > pilot (or tea/coffee) can be 1 gee during the entire roll. They believe it
> > has to vary during the roll. I'm hesitant to name names. ;-)
>
> It has to vary during the roll, because the constant 1 G acceleration due to
> gravity does not change. The net acceleration of the aircraft must always be
> at least one G in consequence, and if the aircraft begins a climb or ends a
> descent, it _must_ be greater than +1.0 G.

You are assuming that the center of the roll makes a straight line,
that is not the case.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jun 11, 12:51 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
> > Myth:
>
> > It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot feels exactly
> > 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the cockpit.
>
> No maneuver that involves a change in altitude can maintain exactly 1 G along
> the net acceleration vector (including perpendicular to the cockpit floor).
> This is not a myth, it's a fact.
>
> The only roll you can perform that does not involve more than 1 G of net
> acceleration is one that involves no change in altitude, such as a roll
> precisely about the longitudinal axis. But no roll that maintains the net
> acceleration vector perpendicular to the cockpit floor is in this category.

A barrel roll is not about the longitudinal axis of the plane, that is
an aileron roll. The barrel roll is about a point about 1/8 mile off
your wing.

-Robert

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan writes:
>>
>>> Most everyone agrees that keeping the coffee in the cup is possible.
>>> What some people don't seem to believe is possible is that the force
>>> felt by the pilot (or tea/coffee) can be 1 gee during the entire
>>> roll. They believe it has to vary during the roll. I'm hesitant to
>>> name names. ;-)
>> It has to vary during the roll, because the constant 1 G acceleration
>> due to gravity does not change. The net acceleration of the aircraft
>> must always be at least one G in consequence, and if the aircraft
>> begins a climb or ends a descent, it _must_ be greater than +1.0 G.
>
> Sigh. Yes, the force that is felt is greater then one g-force at the
> beginning and end of the maneuver. But that is not the case "during the
> roll" itself. Again, as in the other post of yours I responded to, you
> appear to be confusing force and acceleration.

Well, if you can't begin and end the roll, then you can't do a roll.
Arguing that you can omit these phases of the roll is simply silly.
That is like saying that you can do a spin without stalling since
stalling is just the entrance to the spin, not the spin itself.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Jun 11, 12:51 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan writes:
>> > Myth:
>>
>> > It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot feels
>> > exactly 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the cockpit.
>>
>> No maneuver that involves a change in altitude can maintain exactly 1
>> G along the net acceleration vector (including perpendicular to the
>> cockpit floor). This is not a myth, it's a fact.
>>
>> The only roll you can perform that does not involve more than 1 G of
>> net acceleration is one that involves no change in altitude, such as
>> a roll precisely about the longitudinal axis. But no roll that
>> maintains the net acceleration vector perpendicular to the cockpit
>> floor is in this category.
>
> A barrel roll is not about the longitudinal axis of the plane, that is
> an aileron roll.


Nope, a roll about the longitudinal axis of the airplane is a slow roll.
actaully that's not entirely correct either since a perfect slow roll
follows a perfectly staight line, which means the axis of the aircraft
must change in realation to the line of flight throughout.
A slow roll is, hower, a one G roll. The 1 G should always point
earthward, though.


An aileron roll is actualy not dissimilar to a Barrel roll in flight
path.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-11 21:42:18 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
>> On Jun 11, 12:51 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> Jim Logajan writes:
>>>> Myth:
>>>
>>>> It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot feels
>>>> exactly 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the cockpit.
>>>
>>> No maneuver that involves a change in altitude can maintain exactly 1
>>> G along the net acceleration vector (including perpendicular to the
>>> cockpit floor). This is not a myth, it's a fact.
>>>
>>> The only roll you can perform that does not involve more than 1 G of
>>> net acceleration is one that involves no change in altitude, such as
>>> a roll precisely about the longitudinal axis. But no roll that
>>> maintains the net acceleration vector perpendicular to the cockpit
>>> floor is in this category.
>>
>> A barrel roll is not about the longitudinal axis of the plane, that is
>> an aileron roll.
>
>
> Nope, a roll about the longitudinal axis of the airplane is a slow roll.
> actaully that's not entirely correct either since a perfect slow roll
> follows a perfectly staight line, which means the axis of the aircraft
> must change in realation to the line of flight throughout.
> A slow roll is, hower, a one G roll. The 1 G should always point
> earthward, though.
>
>
> An aileron roll is actualy not dissimilar to a Barrel roll in flight
> path.
>
>
> Bertie

Actually Bertie, think about it for just a moment. In a slow roll, you
do indeed roll the airplane on it's longitudinal axis but the roll line
isn't exactly straight.
The reason for this is that you have to pull the nose up to it's
inverted level flight attitude before commencing the roll. If you're
flying something fast like a T38 for example or with a symmetrical wing
like a round wing Pitts it isn't as pronounced as slow rolling
something with a cambered wing but it's there just the same.
The actual shape of a slow roll done correctly will look like a capital
letter D or a reverse capital letter D depending on the roll direction,
but take a slow roll to the right and it's easy to see. The bottom of
the vertical line on the left side of the D represents your initial
nose position beginning the roll. You have to fly up the line to the
top of the D which represents the inverted level flight nose attitude
of the aircraft. The roll initiates there and looks from the ground as
a straight line on the longitudinal axis. You roll the aircraft and
hold it while rolling it through the first knife edge and inverted at
the top of the vertical line on the D. This puts the airplane through
inverted exactly at it's inverted level flight nose attitude. Then, as
you pass through inverted and begin the back side of the roll, you have
to fly the airplane down the right side arc of the D to put the nose
back at it's erect level flight attitude again completing the roll.
The effect as seen from the ground is indeed a roll done in a straight
line, but for the pilot doing the roll, there is that slight vertical
pitch input to the roll set position and the easing off back down that
vertical line through the second knife edge back to level flight.
I should add that the higher the performance of the rolling aircraft,
the shorter that vertical line on the D will be.
For example, that line is much more pronounced in something like a
Citabria than it is in the Decathlon, but there is a pull to the roll
set even in the T38 if you want it to look good from the ground.
When I flew an aerobatic eval flight with the Snowbirds Tutor in 71,
one of the first things I noticed about the jet was the need to get the
nose a lot higher in the roll set for a slow roll than in the Talon.
You don't even want to know how high you have to get the nose to get a
slow roll out of a Cessna Aerobat :-))))

Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:2007061122074775249-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-11 21:42:18 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> oups.com:
>>
>>> On Jun 11, 12:51 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> Jim Logajan writes:
>>>>> Myth:
>>>>
>>>>> It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot
>>>>> feels exactly 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the
>>>>> cockpit.
>>>>
>>>> No maneuver that involves a change in altitude can maintain exactly
>>>> 1 G along the net acceleration vector (including perpendicular to
>>>> the cockpit floor). This is not a myth, it's a fact.
>>>>
>>>> The only roll you can perform that does not involve more than 1 G
>>>> of net acceleration is one that involves no change in altitude,
>>>> such as a roll precisely about the longitudinal axis. But no roll
>>>> that maintains the net acceleration vector perpendicular to the
>>>> cockpit floor is in this category.
>>>
>>> A barrel roll is not about the longitudinal axis of the plane, that
>>> is an aileron roll.
>>
>>
>> Nope, a roll about the longitudinal axis of the airplane is a slow
>> roll. actaully that's not entirely correct either since a perfect
>> slow roll follows a perfectly staight line, which means the axis of
>> the aircraft must change in realation to the line of flight
>> throughout. A slow roll is, hower, a one G roll. The 1 G should
>> always point earthward, though.
>>
>>
>> An aileron roll is actualy not dissimilar to a Barrel roll in flight
>> path.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Actually Bertie, think about it for just a moment. In a slow roll, you
> do indeed roll the airplane on it's longitudinal axis but the roll
> line isn't exactly straight.


Not for competition. You're judged by the line you fly. Mind you, if you
can make it look like you're not pushing the nose all over the place,
all the better.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-11 22:26:31 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> news:2007061122074775249-dhenriques@rcncom:
>
>> On 2007-06-11 21:42:18 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
>> said:
>>
>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>> oups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 11, 12:51 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>> Jim Logajan writes:
>>>>>> Myth:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot
>>>>>> feels exactly 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the
>>>>>> cockpit.
>>>>>
>>>>> No maneuver that involves a change in altitude can maintain exactly
>>>>> 1 G along the net acceleration vector (including perpendicular to
>>>>> the cockpit floor). This is not a myth, it's a fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only roll you can perform that does not involve more than 1 G
>>>>> of net acceleration is one that involves no change in altitude,
>>>>> such as a roll precisely about the longitudinal axis. But no roll
>>>>> that maintains the net acceleration vector perpendicular to the
>>>>> cockpit floor is in this category.
>>>>
>>>> A barrel roll is not about the longitudinal axis of the plane, that
>>>> is an aileron roll.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, a roll about the longitudinal axis of the airplane is a slow
>>> roll. actaully that's not entirely correct either since a perfect
>>> slow roll follows a perfectly staight line, which means the axis of
>>> the aircraft must change in realation to the line of flight
>>> throughout. A slow roll is, hower, a one G roll. The 1 G should
>>> always point earthward, though.
>>>
>>>
>>> An aileron roll is actualy not dissimilar to a Barrel roll in flight
>>> path.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Actually Bertie, think about it for just a moment. In a slow roll, you
>> do indeed roll the airplane on it's longitudinal axis but the roll
>> line isn't exactly straight.
>
>
> Not for competition. You're judged by the line you fly. Mind you, if you
> can make it look like you're not pushing the nose all over the place,
> all the better.
>
>
> Bertie

Therin lies the "art form" :-) Kirk Brimmer, solo for the 71
Thunderbirds told me the hardest thing to do for him in the entire show
was to make his super slow roll look flat from the ground.
Never flew competition, but I agree totally that making the line look
good is the whole 9 yards.
Funny thing about competition judging is inverted spins. The pilot does
the spin to the left and all the "new" judges put it down with a nice
Aresti figure and a notation to the right :-))
As the man says, it's all in the perspective :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:2007061122543716807-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-11 22:26:31 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> news:2007061122074775249-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>
>>> On 2007-06-11 21:42:18 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > said:
>>>
>>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>>> oups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 11, 12:51 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>>> Jim Logajan writes:
>>>>>>> Myth:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot
>>>>>>> feels exactly 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the
>>>>>>> cockpit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No maneuver that involves a change in altitude can maintain
>>>>>> exactly 1 G along the net acceleration vector (including
>>>>>> perpendicular to the cockpit floor). This is not a myth, it's a
>>>>>> fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only roll you can perform that does not involve more than 1 G
>>>>>> of net acceleration is one that involves no change in altitude,
>>>>>> such as a roll precisely about the longitudinal axis. But no
>>>>>> roll that maintains the net acceleration vector perpendicular to
>>>>>> the cockpit floor is in this category.
>>>>>
>>>>> A barrel roll is not about the longitudinal axis of the plane,
>>>>> that is an aileron roll.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, a roll about the longitudinal axis of the airplane is a slow
>>>> roll. actaully that's not entirely correct either since a perfect
>>>> slow roll follows a perfectly staight line, which means the axis of
>>>> the aircraft must change in realation to the line of flight
>>>> throughout. A slow roll is, hower, a one G roll. The 1 G should
>>>> always point earthward, though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An aileron roll is actualy not dissimilar to a Barrel roll in
>>>> flight path.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Actually Bertie, think about it for just a moment. In a slow roll,
>>> you do indeed roll the airplane on it's longitudinal axis but the
>>> roll line isn't exactly straight.
>>
>>
>> Not for competition. You're judged by the line you fly. Mind you, if
>> you can make it look like you're not pushing the nose all over the
>> place, all the better.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Therin lies the "art form" :-) Kirk Brimmer, solo for the 71
> Thunderbirds told me the hardest thing to do for him in the entire
> show was to make his super slow roll look flat from the ground.
> Never flew competition, but I agree totally that making the line look
> good is the whole 9 yards.

Yes. In fact, going vertical, it's expected you make a drift line to
compensate for wind. So if you're doing a vertical roll, you must do it
off the veritcal to make itlook good for the judges.

Not that I've ever competed in anything that would go vertical long
enough to make a difference!

> Funny thing about competition judging is inverted spins. The pilot
> does the spin to the left and all the "new" judges put it down with a
> nice Aresti figure and a notation to the right :-))

They even confused me from inside.

Never Spin a Stearman (the 75 in case we have any nitpickers here) to
the right (pilot's perspective) cuz you'll get a face ful of fuel..


bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-11 23:02:16 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> news:2007061122543716807-dhenriques@rcncom:
>
>> On 2007-06-11 22:26:31 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
>> said:
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> news:2007061122074775249-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>
>>>> On 2007-06-11 21:42:18 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>> > said:
>>>>
>>>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>>>> oups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 11, 12:51 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>>>> Jim Logajan writes:
>>>>>>>> Myth:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot
>>>>>>>> feels exactly 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the
>>>>>>>> cockpit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No maneuver that involves a change in altitude can maintain
>>>>>>> exactly 1 G along the net acceleration vector (including
>>>>>>> perpendicular to the cockpit floor). This is not a myth, it's a
>>>>>>> fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only roll you can perform that does not involve more than 1 G
>>>>>>> of net acceleration is one that involves no change in altitude,
>>>>>>> such as a roll precisely about the longitudinal axis. But no
>>>>>>> roll that maintains the net acceleration vector perpendicular to
>>>>>>> the cockpit floor is in this category.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A barrel roll is not about the longitudinal axis of the plane,
>>>>>> that is an aileron roll.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, a roll about the longitudinal axis of the airplane is a slow
>>>>> roll. actaully that's not entirely correct either since a perfect
>>>>> slow roll follows a perfectly staight line, which means the axis of
>>>>> the aircraft must change in realation to the line of flight
>>>>> throughout. A slow roll is, hower, a one G roll. The 1 G should
>>>>> always point earthward, though.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An aileron roll is actualy not dissimilar to a Barrel roll in
>>>>> flight path.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> Actually Bertie, think about it for just a moment. In a slow roll,
>>>> you do indeed roll the airplane on it's longitudinal axis but the
>>>> roll line isn't exactly straight.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not for competition. You're judged by the line you fly. Mind you, if
>>> you can make it look like you're not pushing the nose all over the
>>> place, all the better.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Therin lies the "art form" :-) Kirk Brimmer, solo for the 71
>> Thunderbirds told me the hardest thing to do for him in the entire
>> show was to make his super slow roll look flat from the ground.
>> Never flew competition, but I agree totally that making the line look
>> good is the whole 9 yards.
>
> Yes. In fact, going vertical, it's expected you make a drift line to
> compensate for wind. So if you're doing a vertical roll, you must do it
> off the veritcal to make itlook good for the judges.

This is also a serious problem in demonstration flying. You're nearly
always dealing with a crosswind because the show line is fixed and
crowd positioning is critical to meet waivers. In the Mustang going
vertical, the torque changes are horrendous as you bleed energy on the
up line and require copious amounts of rudder and some opposite aileron
to hold the line. Throw in a crosswind and you can really have your
hands full on occasion
:-)
>
> Not that I've ever competed in anything that would go vertical long
> enough to make a difference!

You and Duane Cole! I honestly think it was the constant extension of
the vertical line brought on by the influx of the higher powered Pitts'
and some others that did him in with his clipped wing T Craft.
What that man could do with that little puddle jumper had to be seen to
be believed.
>
>> Funny thing about competition judging is inverted spins. The pilot
>> does the spin to the left and all the "new" judges put it down with a
>> nice Aresti figure and a notation to the right :-))
>
> They even confused me from inside.
You TOO huh??? Count me in on that one. The first one I got into was a
botched multiple outside snap in the Pitts. Took me several turns to
figure out what the hell was going on. I've always recommended to acro
pilots that they install a T&B in their airplanes. The needle shows
the spin direction either erect or inverted which on occasion can be
"quite useful" :-)

>
> Never Spin a Stearman (the 75 in case we have any nitpickers here) to
> the right (pilot's perspective) cuz you'll get a face ful of fuel..

Got a few hours in the 650 way back when. Man, were those pedals wide
apart!! :-))
DH
>
>
> bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:2007061123170075249-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-11 23:02:16 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> news:2007061122543716807-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>
>>> On 2007-06-11 22:26:31 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > said:
>>>
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> news:2007061122074775249-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2007-06-11 21:42:18 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>> > said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>>>>> oups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 11, 12:51 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jim Logajan writes:
>>>>>>>>> Myth:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot
>>>>>>>>> feels exactly 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the
>>>>>>>>> cockpit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No maneuver that involves a change in altitude can maintain
>>>>>>>> exactly 1 G along the net acceleration vector (including
>>>>>>>> perpendicular to the cockpit floor). This is not a myth, it's a
>>>>>>>> fact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only roll you can perform that does not involve more than 1
>>>>>>>> G of net acceleration is one that involves no change in
>>>>>>>> altitude, such as a roll precisely about the longitudinal axis.
>>>>>>>> But no roll that maintains the net acceleration vector
>>>>>>>> perpendicular to the cockpit floor is in this category.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A barrel roll is not about the longitudinal axis of the plane,
>>>>>>> that is an aileron roll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, a roll about the longitudinal axis of the airplane is a
>>>>>> slow roll. actaully that's not entirely correct either since a
>>>>>> perfect slow roll follows a perfectly staight line, which means
>>>>>> the axis of the aircraft must change in realation to the line of
>>>>>> flight throughout. A slow roll is, hower, a one G roll. The 1 G
>>>>>> should always point earthward, though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An aileron roll is actualy not dissimilar to a Barrel roll in
>>>>>> flight path.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually Bertie, think about it for just a moment. In a slow roll,
>>>>> you do indeed roll the airplane on it's longitudinal axis but the
>>>>> roll line isn't exactly straight.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not for competition. You're judged by the line you fly. Mind you,
>>>> if you can make it look like you're not pushing the nose all over
>>>> the place, all the better.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Therin lies the "art form" :-) Kirk Brimmer, solo for the 71
>>> Thunderbirds told me the hardest thing to do for him in the entire
>>> show was to make his super slow roll look flat from the ground.
>>> Never flew competition, but I agree totally that making the line
>>> look good is the whole 9 yards.
>>
>> Yes. In fact, going vertical, it's expected you make a drift line to
>> compensate for wind. So if you're doing a vertical roll, you must do
>> it off the veritcal to make itlook good for the judges.
>
> This is also a serious problem in demonstration flying. You're nearly
> always dealing with a crosswind because the show line is fixed and
> crowd positioning is critical to meet waivers. In the Mustang going
> vertical, the torque changes are horrendous as you bleed energy on the
> up line and require copious amounts of rudder and some opposite
> aileron to hold the line. Throw in a crosswind and you can really have
> your hands full on occasion
>:-)
>>
>> Not that I've ever competed in anything that would go vertical long
>> enough to make a difference!
>
> You and Duane Cole! I honestly think it was the constant extension of
> the vertical line brought on by the influx of the higher powered
> Pitts' and some others that did him in with his clipped wing T Craft.
> What that man could do with that little puddle jumper had to be seen
> to be believed.

Still the best aerobatic pilot I've ever seen..I've sen him maybe ten
times over the years. Just brilliant..
>>
>>> Funny thing about competition judging is inverted spins. The pilot
>>> does the spin to the left and all the "new" judges put it down with
>>> a nice Aresti figure and a notation to the right :-))
>>
>> They even confused me from inside.

> You TOO huh??? Count me in on that one. The first one I got into was a
> botched multiple outside snap in the Pitts. Took me several turns to
> figure out what the hell was going on. I've always recommended to acro
> pilots that they install a T&B in their airplanes. The needle shows
> the spin direction either erect or inverted which on occasion can be
> "quite useful" :-)

Wel, in everything I've spun inverted, if you just push the rudder pedal
that's sticking up you'll come out.
I'm sure that there are exceptions though!


>
>>
>> Never Spin a Stearman (the 75 in case we have any nitpickers here) to
>> the right (pilot's perspective) cuz you'll get a face ful of fuel..
>
> Got a few hours in the 650 way back when. Man, were those pedals wide
> apart!! :-))

Yes, good airplane for exploring aerobatics for th eneophyte, though.
Unburstable, except for that prop thing.

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-11 23:27:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>
>> Got a few hours in the 650 way back when. Man, were those pedals wide
>> apart!! :-))
>
> Yes, good airplane for exploring aerobatics for th eneophyte, though.
> Unburstable, except for that prop thing.

That's what got Rollie Cole. Shame.
I miss the old days. I knew a lot of these people up close and
personal.Counting the people we knew on the jet teams and the rest from
the demonstration community, my wife and I have lost 32 friends through
the years to low altitude acro
Dudley

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:200706112344078930-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-11 23:27:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>
>>> Got a few hours in the 650 way back when. Man, were those pedals
>>> wide apart!! :-))
>>
>> Yes, good airplane for exploring aerobatics for th eneophyte, though.
>> Unburstable, except for that prop thing.
>
> That's what got Rollie Cole. Shame.
> I miss the old days. I knew a lot of these people up close and
> personal.Counting the people we knew on the jet teams and the rest
> from the demonstration community, my wife and I have lost 32 friends
> through the years to low altitude acro
> Dudley

Yes. i've lost a few as well. Somehow I managed to survie it though!

I don't even like doing them at altitude so much these days. Except for
smooth stuff. A freind of mine has just got a Yak 52 and is going nuts
in it doing flat spins and what have you.. Gives me a headache just
looking at him!

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-11 23:50:07 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> news:200706112344078930-dhenriques@rcncom:
>
>> On 2007-06-11 23:27:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
>> said:
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>>
>>>> Got a few hours in the 650 way back when. Man, were those pedals
>>>> wide apart!! :-))
>>>
>>> Yes, good airplane for exploring aerobatics for th eneophyte, though.
>>> Unburstable, except for that prop thing.
>>
>> That's what got Rollie Cole. Shame.
>> I miss the old days. I knew a lot of these people up close and
>> personal.Counting the people we knew on the jet teams and the rest
>> from the demonstration community, my wife and I have lost 32 friends
>> through the years to low altitude acro
>> Dudley
>
> Yes. i've lost a few as well. Somehow I managed to survie it though!
>
> I don't even like doing them at altitude so much these days. Except for
> smooth stuff. A freind of mine has just got a Yak 52 and is going nuts
> in it doing flat spins and what have you.. Gives me a headache just
> looking at him!

That's weird. I have a friend in Pa. in the financial business who's
into Yaks as well. (Gotta be careful saying this or PETA will be on my
ass here :-)
He has a 52 now and has just bought an 11. I believe he's trying to put
a P&W in the 11 as we speak.
Got another friend in Jersey who's LOA on Mig 21's.
I think the Russians might be invading after all :-)
D

[BT]

> Did I miss some context? Was there a debate about this? There are
> videos on youtube of people doing barrel rolls with a cup of coffee in
> their lap.
>
> -robert

Ever watch the video of Our Resident Aero Commander Shrike Master Pilot pour
a glass of water/tea/lemonade with his right hand, while performing the
maneuver with his left hand on the yoke?

Bob Hoover is his name..

BT

[muff528]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
. 130...
> "Maxwell" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
>> 46.128...
>>> My name is Bob Moore :-)
>>>
>>> Just what is a barrel roll has been debated between "Big John",
>>> Dudley, and myself at least twice in the past. It IS difficult to
>>> describe without having a model airplane in one's hand and flying it
>>> through the maneuver.
>>>
>>> How come you don't seem to belive the following from Wikipedia?
>>>
>>> Barrel roll
>>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>>
>>> This article is about the aerial sport. For the military operation,
>>> see Operation Barrel Roll.
>>> A barrel roll occurs when an object (usually an airplane or roller
>>> coaster)
>>> makes a complete rotation on its longitudinal axis while following a
>>> helical path, approximately maintaining its original direction. The G
>>> load is kept positive (but not constant) on the aircraft throughout
>>> the maneuver, commonly not more than 2-3 G.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> From:
>>> http://acro.harvard.edu
>>>
>>> The Barrel Roll is a not competition maneuver. 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.
>>>
>>
>> Then would you label the roll that Jim has described here as a form of
>> aileron roll, instead of a barrel roll? Or do you think it is
>> possible to do a 1g aileron roll?
>
> It's less of a roll than it is a loop.
>
>
> In fact, that's how I used to teach it. Get a hula hoop, cut it and pull
> the ends apart. you are now looking at the path of a barrel roll. A
> skewed loop
>
>
> Bertie

Would it be possible to maintain 1g in the seat if the "corkscrew" were
modified to a shape like an opening spiral, similar to a nautilus shell?
Maybe slip to the right while pulling the nose up to induce acceleration of
1g. You would continue this maneuver, gradually flattening the spiral as
gravity takes over the acceleration into the seat until you are again
straight and level. You would never "climb" against gravity at any point
since that would create an acceleration above 1g. Of course I guess this
isn't technically a barrel roll but my question refers to the possibility of
keeping a constant 1g as felt in the seat throughout the maneuver. Like this
crappy drawing as seen from behind:
http://home1.gte.net/res0f19c/dir1/spiral.jpg

TP

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:2007061200011427544-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-11 23:50:07 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> news:200706112344078930-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>
>>> On 2007-06-11 23:27:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > said:
>>>
>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>>>
>>>>> Got a few hours in the 650 way back when. Man, were those pedals
>>>>> wide apart!! :-))
>>>>
>>>> Yes, good airplane for exploring aerobatics for th eneophyte,
>>>> though. Unburstable, except for that prop thing.
>>>
>>> That's what got Rollie Cole. Shame.
>>> I miss the old days. I knew a lot of these people up close and
>>> personal.Counting the people we knew on the jet teams and the rest
>>> from the demonstration community, my wife and I have lost 32 friends
>>> through the years to low altitude acro
>>> Dudley
>>
>> Yes. i've lost a few as well. Somehow I managed to survie it though!
>>
>> I don't even like doing them at altitude so much these days. Except
>> for smooth stuff. A freind of mine has just got a Yak 52 and is going
>> nuts in it doing flat spins and what have you.. Gives me a headache
>> just looking at him!
>
> That's weird. I have a friend in Pa. in the financial business who's
> into Yaks as well. (Gotta be careful saying this or PETA will be on my
> ass here :-)
> He has a 52 now and has just bought an 11. I believe he's trying to
> put a P&W in the 11 as we speak.
> Got another friend in Jersey who's LOA on Mig 21's.
> I think the Russians might be invading after all :-)

I'd say we might have some mutual acquantences.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"muff528" > wrote in
news:S1pbi.1718$O15.1221@trnddc03:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> . 130...
>> "Maxwell" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
>>> 46.128...
>>>> My name is Bob Moore :-)
>>>>
>>>> Just what is a barrel roll has been debated between "Big John",
>>>> Dudley, and myself at least twice in the past. It IS difficult to
>>>> describe without having a model airplane in one's hand and flying
>>>> it through the maneuver.
>>>>
>>>> How come you don't seem to belive the following from Wikipedia?
>>>>
>>>> Barrel roll
>>>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>>>
>>>> This article is about the aerial sport. For the military operation,
>>>> see Operation Barrel Roll.
>>>> A barrel roll occurs when an object (usually an airplane or roller
>>>> coaster)
>>>> makes a complete rotation on its longitudinal axis while following
>>>> a helical path, approximately maintaining its original direction.
>>>> The G load is kept positive (but not constant) on the aircraft
>>>> throughout the maneuver, commonly not more than 2-3 G.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> From:
>>>> http://acro.harvard.edu
>>>>
>>>> The Barrel Roll is a not competition maneuver. 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then would you label the roll that Jim has described here as a form
>>> of aileron roll, instead of a barrel roll? Or do you think it is
>>> possible to do a 1g aileron roll?
>>
>> It's less of a roll than it is a loop.
>>
>>
>> In fact, that's how I used to teach it. Get a hula hoop, cut it and
>> pull the ends apart. you are now looking at the path of a barrel
>> roll. A skewed loop
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Would it be possible to maintain 1g in the seat if the "corkscrew"
> were modified to a shape like an opening spiral, similar to a nautilus
> shell? Maybe slip to the right while pulling the nose up to induce
> acceleration of 1g.

No.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 00:14:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> news:2007061200011427544-dhenriques@rcncom:
>
>> On 2007-06-11 23:50:07 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
>> said:
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> news:200706112344078930-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>
>>>> On 2007-06-11 23:27:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>> > said:
>>>>
>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got a few hours in the 650 way back when. Man, were those pedals
>>>>>> wide apart!! :-))
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, good airplane for exploring aerobatics for th eneophyte,
>>>>> though. Unburstable, except for that prop thing.
>>>>
>>>> That's what got Rollie Cole. Shame.
>>>> I miss the old days. I knew a lot of these people up close and
>>>> personal.Counting the people we knew on the jet teams and the rest
>>>> from the demonstration community, my wife and I have lost 32 friends
>>>> through the years to low altitude acro
>>>> Dudley
>>>
>>> Yes. i've lost a few as well. Somehow I managed to survie it though!
>>>
>>> I don't even like doing them at altitude so much these days. Except
>>> for smooth stuff. A freind of mine has just got a Yak 52 and is going
>>> nuts in it doing flat spins and what have you.. Gives me a headache
>>> just looking at him!
>>
>> That's weird. I have a friend in Pa. in the financial business who's
>> into Yaks as well. (Gotta be careful saying this or PETA will be on my
>> ass here :-)
>> He has a 52 now and has just bought an 11. I believe he's trying to
>> put a P&W in the 11 as we speak.
>> Got another friend in Jersey who's LOA on Mig 21's.
>> I think the Russians might be invading after all :-)
>
> I'd say we might have some mutual acquantences.
>
>
> Bertie

Wouldn't surprise me a bit, but fear not if so. Should the Bunyip
become known, his secret is safe and shall remain so.
For your interest, the two people are Seligman and Sutton.
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:2007061201080016807-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-12 00:14:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> news:2007061200011427544-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>
>>> On 2007-06-11 23:50:07 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > said:
>>>
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> news:200706112344078930-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2007-06-11 23:27:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>> > said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Got a few hours in the 650 way back when. Man, were those pedals
>>>>>>> wide apart!! :-))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, good airplane for exploring aerobatics for th eneophyte,
>>>>>> though. Unburstable, except for that prop thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what got Rollie Cole. Shame.
>>>>> I miss the old days. I knew a lot of these people up close and
>>>>> personal.Counting the people we knew on the jet teams and the rest
>>>>> from the demonstration community, my wife and I have lost 32
>>>>> friends through the years to low altitude acro
>>>>> Dudley
>>>>
>>>> Yes. i've lost a few as well. Somehow I managed to survie it
>>>> though!
>>>>
>>>> I don't even like doing them at altitude so much these days. Except
>>>> for smooth stuff. A freind of mine has just got a Yak 52 and is
>>>> going nuts in it doing flat spins and what have you.. Gives me a
>>>> headache just looking at him!
>>>
>>> That's weird. I have a friend in Pa. in the financial business who's
>>> into Yaks as well. (Gotta be careful saying this or PETA will be on
>>> my ass here :-)
>>> He has a 52 now and has just bought an 11. I believe he's trying to
>>> put a P&W in the 11 as we speak.
>>> Got another friend in Jersey who's LOA on Mig 21's.
>>> I think the Russians might be invading after all :-)
>>
>> I'd say we might have some mutual acquantences.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Wouldn't surprise me a bit, but fear not if so. Should the Bunyip
> become known, his secret is safe and shall remain so.
> For your interest, the two people are Seligman and Sutton.

No, don't know them myself, but I think one had A CJ 6 ferried from Cal
a few years ago?

Also, i reckon you also knew a Pinto/ F86 driver that bit off more than
he could chew?




Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> You are assuming that the center of the roll makes a straight line,
> that is not the case.

I'm making no such assumption.

The reality is that there will always be an acceleration of 1 G imposed on the
aircraft, in the direction of the ground. There is nothing that you can do in
an aircraft that will eliminate this acceleration, and there is nothing you
can do in an aircraft that changes its height above the ground or its path
over the ground that will not introduce additional acceleration. This is all
basic physics.

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 01:11:04 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> news:2007061201080016807-dhenriques@rcncom:
>
>> On 2007-06-12 00:14:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
>> said:
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> news:2007061200011427544-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>
>>>> On 2007-06-11 23:50:07 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>> > said:
>>>>
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> news:200706112344078930-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2007-06-11 23:27:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>>> > said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Got a few hours in the 650 way back when. Man, were those pedals
>>>>>>>> wide apart!! :-))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, good airplane for exploring aerobatics for th eneophyte,
>>>>>>> though. Unburstable, except for that prop thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what got Rollie Cole. Shame.
>>>>>> I miss the old days. I knew a lot of these people up close and
>>>>>> personal.Counting the people we knew on the jet teams and the rest
>>>>>> from the demonstration community, my wife and I have lost 32
>>>>>> friends through the years to low altitude acro
>>>>>> Dudley
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. i've lost a few as well. Somehow I managed to survie it
>>>>> though!
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't even like doing them at altitude so much these days. Except
>>>>> for smooth stuff. A freind of mine has just got a Yak 52 and is
>>>>> going nuts in it doing flat spins and what have you.. Gives me a
>>>>> headache just looking at him!
>>>>
>>>> That's weird. I have a friend in Pa. in the financial business who's
>>>> into Yaks as well. (Gotta be careful saying this or PETA will be on
>>>> my ass here :-)
>>>> He has a 52 now and has just bought an 11. I believe he's trying to
>>>> put a P&W in the 11 as we speak.
>>>> Got another friend in Jersey who's LOA on Mig 21's.
>>>> I think the Russians might be invading after all :-)
>>>
>>> I'd say we might have some mutual acquantences.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Wouldn't surprise me a bit, but fear not if so. Should the Bunyip
>> become known, his secret is safe and shall remain so.
>> For your interest, the two people are Seligman and Sutton.
>
> No, don't know them myself, but I think one had A CJ 6 ferried from Cal
> a few years ago?
>
> Also, i reckon you also knew a Pinto/ F86 driver that bit off more than
> he could chew?

Steve and I knew each other quite well many years ago when he was a
partner in the old Valley Forge Airport in Pa. His partner had a French
wife you had to see to believe. If I remember right (and who could
forget her..her name was Yvette. :-)
Steve had enough patents to choke a horse, including the paraglider and
the Sentinel just to name two. He made a ton of money in his life. I
take it you knew him as well.
I don't really know what happened to the 86 the day he went in over in
Jersey and I can't remember if the bird had an Orenda in it or a J47.
If it was a J47, he could easily have swallowed a bucket. That engine
was a mess from the gitgo.
I know he went in suddenly on some kind of a low pass with an engine
issue but we never really got the complete details of exactly what
happened and aside from sending a formal card to the museum, I've never
pressed them for an answer.
Dudley
>
>
>
>
> Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

muff528 writes:

> Would it be possible to maintain 1g in the seat if the "corkscrew" were
> modified to a shape like an opening spiral, similar to a nautilus shell?

No.

> Maybe slip to the right while pulling the nose up to induce acceleration of
> 1g. You would continue this maneuver, gradually flattening the spiral as
> gravity takes over the acceleration into the seat until you are again
> straight and level. You would never "climb" against gravity at any point
> since that would create an acceleration above 1g.

Any time your vertical speed increases positively, you are above 1 G.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> Drop the nose straight down so as to make the plane & pilot weightless.
> Then start doing horizontal loops so the centrifugal force yields the
> equivalent of one gravity of weight.

The total force on the aircraft will still be above 1 G unless the entire loop
is in free fall.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> You appear to be confusing acceleration and force (you appear at times to
> treat them as the same thing), among other faults in your thinking.

Applying force produces acceleration; acceleration is application of a force.

But I'm not confusing anything; the confusion I see here is in others.
Apparently physics is not a part of pilot training.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Hey, asshole- how about rolls on the vertical, either up or down? The plane
> is climbing or descending, while maintaining one g througout. There is no
> change in the g forces associated with the roll.

That cannot be done, unless the entire frame of reference is in free fall,
which it isn't. If the frame of reference of the roll is not falling at 1 G
acceleration, it is impossible to maintain exactly one G while moving up or
down.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Think about it- a roll on the vertical does not apply any g to the airplane.
The airplane is decelerating or accelerating at the rate of 1G in the x
axis. During a vertical roll there is no acceleration in the z or y axes.

You are wrong again. You are not looking for answers- you are trying to get
attention to fulfill your pathetic life.

[Maxwell]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:2007061201260116807-dhenriques@rcncom...
> On 2007-06-12 01:11:04 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> news:2007061201080016807-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>
>>> On 2007-06-12 00:14:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> news:2007061200011427544-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2007-06-11 23:50:07 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>> > said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> news:200706112344078930-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2007-06-11 23:27:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>>>> > said:
>>>>>>>

You guys need to get a room. I haven't seen this much strokin' since Debbie
did Dallas.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jun 11, 10:24 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > You are assuming that the center of the roll makes a straight line,
> > that is not the case.
>
> I'm making no such assumption.
>
> The reality is that there will always be an acceleration of 1 G imposed on the
> aircraft, in the direction of the ground. There is nothing that you can do in
> an aircraft that will eliminate this acceleration, and there is nothing you
> can do in an aircraft that changes its height above the ground or its path
> over the ground that will not introduce additional acceleration. This is all
> basic physics.

Do you believe that a pilot at the top of a loop can experience
possitive G's?

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Hey, asshole- how about rolls on the vertical, either up or down? The
>> plane is climbing or descending, while maintaining one g througout.
>> There is no change in the g forces associated with the roll.
>
> That cannot be done, unless the entire frame of reference is in free
> fall, which it isn't. If the frame of reference of the roll is not
> falling at 1 G acceleration, it is impossible to maintain exactly one
> G while moving up or down.
>

You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> You are assuming that the center of the roll makes a straight line,
>> that is not the case.
>
> I'm making no such assumption.
>
> The reality is that there will always be an acceleration of 1 G
> imposed on the aircraft,

No, there won't


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:2007061201260116807-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-12 01:11:04 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> news:2007061201080016807-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>
>>> On 2007-06-12 00:14:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > said:
>>>
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> news:2007061200011427544-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2007-06-11 23:50:07 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>> > said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> news:200706112344078930-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2007-06-11 23:27:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>>>> > said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Got a few hours in the 650 way back when. Man, were those
>>>>>>>>> pedals wide apart!! :-))
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, good airplane for exploring aerobatics for th eneophyte,
>>>>>>>> though. Unburstable, except for that prop thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what got Rollie Cole. Shame.
>>>>>>> I miss the old days. I knew a lot of these people up close and
>>>>>>> personal.Counting the people we knew on the jet teams and the
>>>>>>> rest from the demonstration community, my wife and I have lost
>>>>>>> 32 friends through the years to low altitude acro
>>>>>>> Dudley
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. i've lost a few as well. Somehow I managed to survie it
>>>>>> though!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't even like doing them at altitude so much these days.
>>>>>> Except for smooth stuff. A freind of mine has just got a Yak 52
>>>>>> and is going nuts in it doing flat spins and what have you..
>>>>>> Gives me a headache just looking at him!
>>>>>
>>>>> That's weird. I have a friend in Pa. in the financial business
>>>>> who's into Yaks as well. (Gotta be careful saying this or PETA
>>>>> will be on my ass here :-)
>>>>> He has a 52 now and has just bought an 11. I believe he's trying
>>>>> to put a P&W in the 11 as we speak.
>>>>> Got another friend in Jersey who's LOA on Mig 21's.
>>>>> I think the Russians might be invading after all :-)
>>>>
>>>> I'd say we might have some mutual acquantences.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Wouldn't surprise me a bit, but fear not if so. Should the Bunyip
>>> become known, his secret is safe and shall remain so.
>>> For your interest, the two people are Seligman and Sutton.
>>
>> No, don't know them myself, but I think one had A CJ 6 ferried from
>> Cal a few years ago?
>>
>> Also, i reckon you also knew a Pinto/ F86 driver that bit off more
>> than he could chew?
>
> Steve and I knew each other quite well many years ago when he was a
> partner in the old Valley Forge Airport in Pa. His partner had a
> French wife you had to see to believe. If I remember right (and who
> could forget her..her name was Yvette. :-)

Yeah, met her. I worked for him a looong time ago.

> Steve had enough patents to choke a horse, including the paraglider
> and the Sentinel just to name two. He made a ton of money in his life.
> I take it you knew him as well.


Yeah. Not real well, just worked for him.

> I don't really know what happened to the 86 the day he went in over in
> Jersey and I can't remember if the bird had an Orenda in it or a J47.


Well, i know the FAA guy who had refused to sign him off for the airshow
at 7MY. He only had the thing a couple of weeks and the guy who was
supposed to sign him off refused him a display ticket for an airshow
that weekend on the basis he would probably kill himself even just
trying to land it there (it's less than 3,000 feet long) . He decided to
land there and static display it and land the day before. didn't like
the look of the approach and the engine quit on the go around.

He was kind of famous for things like that. I saw him do a low pass in
that Pinto and pull up vertically and disappear at that very same
airport. He must have been doing 350 down the runway. Not too clever at
a busy field like that. He must have run out of gas in that Stallion
about a dozen times hauling jumpers and his sense around the ramp was
legendary. He nearly blew over a Luscombe I had with that Pinto one day.
Still , he was one clever boy. He had an RC Convair Pogo back in the
'70s when nobody did that kind of thing. All little mechanical
stabilising gyros in it he had made himself. And I can't imagine anyone
else geting the 262 thing going like he did.
BTW, that was the very first airplane I ever sat in when I was all of
5..



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:2007061201260116807-dhenriques@rcncom...
>> On 2007-06-12 01:11:04 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>> > said:
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> news:2007061201080016807-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>
>>>> On 2007-06-12 00:14:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>> > said:
>>>>
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> news:2007061200011427544-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2007-06-11 23:50:07 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>>> > said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>> news:200706112344078930-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2007-06-11 23:27:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>>>>> > said:
>>>>>>>>
>
> You guys need to get a room. I haven't seen this much strokin' since
> Debbie did Dallas.
>

Aww, you been huwt.

Awww.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> muff528 writes:
>
>> Would it be possible to maintain 1g in the seat if the "corkscrew"
>> were modified to a shape like an opening spiral, similar to a
>> nautilus shell?
>
> No.
>
>> Maybe slip to the right while pulling the nose up to induce
>> acceleration of 1g. You would continue this maneuver, gradually
>> flattening the spiral as gravity takes over the acceleration into the
>> seat until you are again straight and level. You would never "climb"
>> against gravity at any point since that would create an acceleration
>> above 1g.
>
> Any time your vertical speed increases positively, you are above 1 G.
>

Nope.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> You don't even know why you're right, monkey boi.
>
> I know exactly why I'm right, and I must be right with a vengeance if
> you feel compelled to admit it.



Nope,

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> Drop the nose straight down so as to make the plane & pilot
>> weightless. Then start doing horizontal loops so the centrifugal
>> force yields the equivalent of one gravity of weight.
>
> The total force on the aircraft will still be above 1 G unless the
> entire loop is in free fall.
>

Nope.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> You appear to be confusing acceleration and force (you appear at
>> times to treat them as the same thing), among other faults in your
>> thinking.
>
> Applying force produces acceleration; acceleration is application of a
> force.
>
> But I'm not confusing anything; the confusion I see here is in others.
> Apparently physics is not a part of pilot training.
>

Apparently, But you're stil talking nonsense.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mx -

I don't have a great understanding of physics, and you seem to
understand it - so perhaps you can help me with something.

What happens to the g force acting on me as a pilot if I start in
straight and level, unaccelerated flight, and then I initiate a
coordinated turn?

Tom


On Jun 12, 1:24 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > You are assuming that the center of the roll makes a straight line,
> > that is not the case.
>
> I'm making no such assumption.
>
> The reality is that there will always be an acceleration of 1 G imposed on the
> aircraft, in the direction of the ground. There is nothing that you can do in
> an aircraft that will eliminate this acceleration, and there is nothing you
> can do in an aircraft that changes its height above the ground or its path
> over the ground that will not introduce additional acceleration. This is all
> basic physics.

[muff528]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
> "muff528" > wrote in
> news:S1pbi.1718$O15.1221@trnddc03:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> . 130...
>>> "Maxwell" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
>>>> 46.128...
>>>>> My name is Bob Moore :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Just what is a barrel roll has been debated between "Big John",
>>>>> Dudley, and myself at least twice in the past. It IS difficult to
>>>>> describe without having a model airplane in one's hand and flying
>>>>> it through the maneuver.
>>>>>
>>>>> How come you don't seem to belive the following from Wikipedia?
>>>>>
>>>>> Barrel roll
>>>>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>>>>
>>>>> This article is about the aerial sport. For the military operation,
>>>>> see Operation Barrel Roll.
>>>>> A barrel roll occurs when an object (usually an airplane or roller
>>>>> coaster)
>>>>> makes a complete rotation on its longitudinal axis while following
>>>>> a helical path, approximately maintaining its original direction.
>>>>> The G load is kept positive (but not constant) on the aircraft
>>>>> throughout the maneuver, commonly not more than 2-3 G.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> From:
>>>>> http://acro.harvard.edu
>>>>>
>>>>> The Barrel Roll is a not competition maneuver. 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then would you label the roll that Jim has described here as a form
>>>> of aileron roll, instead of a barrel roll? Or do you think it is
>>>> possible to do a 1g aileron roll?
>>>
>>> It's less of a roll than it is a loop.
>>>
>>>
>>> In fact, that's how I used to teach it. Get a hula hoop, cut it and
>>> pull the ends apart. you are now looking at the path of a barrel
>>> roll. A skewed loop
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Would it be possible to maintain 1g in the seat if the "corkscrew"
>> were modified to a shape like an opening spiral, similar to a nautilus
>> shell? Maybe slip to the right while pulling the nose up to induce
>> acceleration of 1g.
>
> No.
>
> Bertie

Damn!

TP

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"muff528" > wrote in news:V2Abi.5094$3Q4.153
@trnddc05:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .130...
>> "muff528" > wrote in
>> news:S1pbi.1718$O15.1221@trnddc03:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> . 130...
>>>> "Maxwell" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
>>>>> 46.128...
>>>>>> My name is Bob Moore :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just what is a barrel roll has been debated between "Big John",
>>>>>> Dudley, and myself at least twice in the past. It IS difficult to
>>>>>> describe without having a model airplane in one's hand and flying
>>>>>> it through the maneuver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How come you don't seem to belive the following from Wikipedia?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Barrel roll
>>>>>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This article is about the aerial sport. For the military
operation,
>>>>>> see Operation Barrel Roll.
>>>>>> A barrel roll occurs when an object (usually an airplane or
roller
>>>>>> coaster)
>>>>>> makes a complete rotation on its longitudinal axis while
following
>>>>>> a helical path, approximately maintaining its original direction.
>>>>>> The G load is kept positive (but not constant) on the aircraft
>>>>>> throughout the maneuver, commonly not more than 2-3 G.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From:
>>>>>> http://acro.harvard.edu
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Barrel Roll is a not competition maneuver. 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then would you label the roll that Jim has described here as a
form
>>>>> of aileron roll, instead of a barrel roll? Or do you think it is
>>>>> possible to do a 1g aileron roll?
>>>>
>>>> It's less of a roll than it is a loop.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In fact, that's how I used to teach it. Get a hula hoop, cut it and
>>>> pull the ends apart. you are now looking at the path of a barrel
>>>> roll. A skewed loop
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Would it be possible to maintain 1g in the seat if the "corkscrew"
>>> were modified to a shape like an opening spiral, similar to a
nautilus
>>> shell? Maybe slip to the right while pulling the nose up to induce
>>> acceleration of 1g.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Damn!
>

Stil, be a fairly interesting thing to try. You'd need a pretty powerful
airplane. Maybe you could get to name it.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 10:43:17 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> news:2007061201260116807-dhenriques@rcncom:
>
>> On 2007-06-12 01:11:04 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
>> said:
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> news:2007061201080016807-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>
>>>> On 2007-06-12 00:14:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>> > said:
>>>>
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> news:2007061200011427544-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2007-06-11 23:50:07 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>>> > said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>> news:200706112344078930-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2007-06-11 23:27:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>>>>> > said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Got a few hours in the 650 way back when. Man, were those
>>>>>>>>>> pedals wide apart!! :-))
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, good airplane for exploring aerobatics for th eneophyte,
>>>>>>>>> though. Unburstable, except for that prop thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's what got Rollie Cole. Shame.
>>>>>>>> I miss the old days. I knew a lot of these people up close and
>>>>>>>> personal.Counting the people we knew on the jet teams and the
>>>>>>>> rest from the demonstration community, my wife and I have lost
>>>>>>>> 32 friends through the years to low altitude acro
>>>>>>>> Dudley
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. i've lost a few as well. Somehow I managed to survie it
>>>>>>> though!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't even like doing them at altitude so much these days.
>>>>>>> Except for smooth stuff. A freind of mine has just got a Yak 52
>>>>>>> and is going nuts in it doing flat spins and what have you..
>>>>>>> Gives me a headache just looking at him!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's weird. I have a friend in Pa. in the financial business
>>>>>> who's into Yaks as well. (Gotta be careful saying this or PETA
>>>>>> will be on my ass here :-)
>>>>>> He has a 52 now and has just bought an 11. I believe he's trying
>>>>>> to put a P&W in the 11 as we speak.
>>>>>> Got another friend in Jersey who's LOA on Mig 21's.
>>>>>> I think the Russians might be invading after all :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd say we might have some mutual acquantences.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't surprise me a bit, but fear not if so. Should the Bunyip
>>>> become known, his secret is safe and shall remain so.
>>>> For your interest, the two people are Seligman and Sutton.
>>>
>>> No, don't know them myself, but I think one had A CJ 6 ferried from
>>> Cal a few years ago?
>>>
>>> Also, i reckon you also knew a Pinto/ F86 driver that bit off more
>>> than he could chew?
>>
>> Steve and I knew each other quite well many years ago when he was a
>> partner in the old Valley Forge Airport in Pa. His partner had a
>> French wife you had to see to believe. If I remember right (and who
>> could forget her..her name was Yvette. :-)
>
> Yeah, met her. I worked for him a looong time ago.

God, that goes WAY back. :-))
I used to fly with Alex Perez if you remember him from Valley Forge.
we got drunk together one night over at the VF Country Club, went out
to the end of the runway and drove copper nails into a huge tree right
in the middle of the approach path. That tree had been driving us all
nuts for a long time :-)
Not sure if the tree died or was cut down when the airport was sold later on.
Alex was killed off in a war and I had moved on to bigger things.
Steve was still the FBO there when I left.
>
>> Steve had enough patents to choke a horse, including the paraglider
>> and the Sentinel just to name two. He made a ton of money in his life.
>> I take it you knew him as well.
>
>
> Yeah. Not real well, just worked for him.
>
>> I don't really know what happened to the 86 the day he went in over in
>> Jersey and I can't remember if the bird had an Orenda in it or a J47.
>
>
> Well, i know the FAA guy who had refused to sign him off for the airshow
> at 7MY. He only had the thing a couple of weeks and the guy who was
> supposed to sign him off refused him a display ticket for an airshow
> that weekend on the basis he would probably kill himself even just
> trying to land it there (it's less than 3,000 feet long) . He decided to
> land there and static display it and land the day before. didn't like
> the look of the approach and the engine quit on the go around.

If I remember right, Steve's Sabre was a Sabre 6. They extended the
leading edges and replaced the LE Slats on the 6. He might have gotten
it into a 3000 ft. strip behind the curve , but getting it out again
would have been a whole new ball game. You over rotate the 86 on
takeoff and you can easily pull it into drag rise. If you do that, the
damn thing will just sit there on the runway and it's the California
Ice Cream Parlor all over again.
I would think twice about taking an 86 out of a 3K strip. The FAA LOA
(I'm assuming he was LOA quald in the Sabre but with the FAA who knows
:-) guy was probably right.
>
> He was kind of famous for things like that. I saw him do a low pass in
> that Pinto and pull up vertically and disappear at that very same
> airport. He must have been doing 350 down the runway. Not too clever at
> a busy field like that. He must have run out of gas in that Stallion
> about a dozen times hauling jumpers and his sense around the ramp was
> legendary. He nearly blew over a Luscombe I had with that Pinto one day.
> Still , he was one clever boy. He had an RC Convair Pogo back in the
> '70s when nobody did that kind of thing. All little mechanical
> stabilising gyros in it he had made himself. And I can't imagine anyone
> else geting the 262 thing going like he did.
> BTW, that was the very first airplane I ever sat in when I was all of
> 5..
The 262 project is indeed something else. I think he had to use the old
bird at Willow Grove for a template, and the deal as we heard it anyway
was that he had to restore it to museum quality. I don't know where
that airplane is today but I'll bet it looks better than it did the
last time I saw it sitting these by the fence at WG :-)
Dudley
>
>
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:2007061214475016807-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-12 10:43:17 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> news:2007061201260116807-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>
>>> On 2007-06-12 01:11:04 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > said:
>>>
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> news:2007061201080016807-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2007-06-12 00:14:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>> > said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> news:2007061200011427544-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2007-06-11 23:50:07 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>>>> > said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:200706112344078930-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2007-06-11 23:27:09 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>>>>>> > said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Got a few hours in the 650 way back when. Man, were those
>>>>>>>>>>> pedals wide apart!! :-))
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, good airplane for exploring aerobatics for th eneophyte,
>>>>>>>>>> though. Unburstable, except for that prop thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's what got Rollie Cole. Shame.
>>>>>>>>> I miss the old days. I knew a lot of these people up close and
>>>>>>>>> personal.Counting the people we knew on the jet teams and the
>>>>>>>>> rest from the demonstration community, my wife and I have lost
>>>>>>>>> 32 friends through the years to low altitude acro
>>>>>>>>> Dudley
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. i've lost a few as well. Somehow I managed to survie it
>>>>>>>> though!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't even like doing them at altitude so much these days.
>>>>>>>> Except for smooth stuff. A freind of mine has just got a Yak 52
>>>>>>>> and is going nuts in it doing flat spins and what have you..
>>>>>>>> Gives me a headache just looking at him!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's weird. I have a friend in Pa. in the financial business
>>>>>>> who's into Yaks as well. (Gotta be careful saying this or PETA
>>>>>>> will be on my ass here :-)
>>>>>>> He has a 52 now and has just bought an 11. I believe he's trying
>>>>>>> to put a P&W in the 11 as we speak.
>>>>>>> Got another friend in Jersey who's LOA on Mig 21's.
>>>>>>> I think the Russians might be invading after all :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd say we might have some mutual acquantences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't surprise me a bit, but fear not if so. Should the Bunyip
>>>>> become known, his secret is safe and shall remain so.
>>>>> For your interest, the two people are Seligman and Sutton.
>>>>
>>>> No, don't know them myself, but I think one had A CJ 6 ferried from
>>>> Cal a few years ago?
>>>>
>>>> Also, i reckon you also knew a Pinto/ F86 driver that bit off more
>>>> than he could chew?
>>>
>>> Steve and I knew each other quite well many years ago when he was a
>>> partner in the old Valley Forge Airport in Pa. His partner had a
>>> French wife you had to see to believe. If I remember right (and who
>>> could forget her..her name was Yvette. :-)
>>
>> Yeah, met her. I worked for him a looong time ago.
>
> God, that goes WAY back. :-))
> I used to fly with Alex Perez if you remember him from Valley Forge.
> we got drunk together one night over at the VF Country Club, went out
> to the end of the runway and drove copper nails into a huge tree right
> in the middle of the approach path. That tree had been driving us all
> nuts for a long time :-)
> Not sure if the tree died or was cut down when the airport was sold
> later on. Alex was killed off in a war and I had moved on to bigger
> things. Steve was still the FBO there when I left.

No, don't know Alex. Never was waround that part of the world much, except
I did have an airplane at Toughkenemon (sp?) for a while and did know Lex &
John Dupont. imagine my surprise to see John on CNN one morning! Actually,
I wasn't that surprised.. Also was in PGC with Steven for a while, but he
wouldn't know me from Adam.


>
> If I remember right, Steve's Sabre was a Sabre 6. They extended the
> leading edges and replaced the LE Slats on the 6. He might have gotten
> it into a 3000 ft. strip behind the curve , but getting it out again
> would have been a whole new ball game. You over rotate the 86 on
> takeoff and you can easily pull it into drag rise. If you do that, the
> damn thing will just sit there on the runway and it's the California
> Ice Cream Parlor all over again.
> I would think twice about taking an 86 out of a 3K strip. The FAA LOA
> (I'm assuming he was LOA quald in the Sabre but with the FAA who knows
>:-) guy was probably right.

Oh yeah. The FAA guy was a poacher turned gamekeeper and knew what he was
talking about.
>>


> The 262 project is indeed something else. I think he had to use the
> old bird at Willow Grove for a template, and the deal as we heard it
> anyway was that he had to restore it to museum quality. I don't know
> where that airplane is today but I'll bet it looks better than it did
> the last time I saw it sitting these by the fence at WG :-)
> Dudley


Yeah, ythat's right. That's the one I sat in. That was years after I'd seen
him last, though. I don't know if they got the airplane back to the navy or
not.

I used to work for Albie, btw... most of my flying in tht area was at Van
Sant, though..


those were the days..





Bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 15:35:34 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

>
> Oh yeah. The FAA guy was a poacher turned gamekeeper and knew what he was
> talking about.

I see you've dealt with them as well :-)))
>>>
>
>
>
>
> I used to work for Albie, btw... most of my flying in tht area was at Van
> Sant, though..
>
>
> those were the days..

God, for a second there I thought I might have figured out who you
were. I thought for a moment you might be Bert Size from HiLine
Montgomeryville Airport. Ed Size was his father and ran Hi Line. I used
to instruct there with Bert. That would mean you and I had actually
worked and flown together at one time. Man, now THAT would be a small
world!!!!
The gang from Hi Line would fly up to Van Sant and just sit around on
the grass shooting the pervibal bull. Van Sant was a great little field
for just playing around with airplanes as I'm sure you know.
You're right, those days were the most fun you could have with your
clothes on and we'll never see the likes of them again I'm afraid.
Dudley

>
>
>
>
>
> Bertie

[Jay Somerset]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:24:02 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan writes:
>>
>>> Most everyone agrees that keeping the coffee in the cup is possible.
>>> What some people don't seem to believe is possible is that the force
>>> felt by the pilot (or tea/coffee) can be 1 gee during the entire
>>> roll. They believe it has to vary during the roll. I'm hesitant to
>>> name names. ;-)
>>
>> It has to vary during the roll, because the constant 1 G acceleration
>> due to gravity does not change. The net acceleration of the aircraft
>> must always be at least one G in consequence, and if the aircraft
>> begins a climb or ends a descent, it _must_ be greater than +1.0 G.
>
>Sigh. Yes, the force that is felt is greater then one g-force at the
>beginning and end of the maneuver. But that is not the case "during the
>roll" itself. Again, as in the other post of yours I responded to, you
>appear to be confusing force and acceleration.

Not a serious confusion, as force and acceleration are stricly
proportional (F=mA) as long as the mass of the object (plane) is not
changing. Over the time intervals involved, not enough fuel is burned
to significantly change the mass. Now, if the pilot scares the s--t
out of himself during the manouver, then the proportionality might not
hold up. :-)
---
Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)

[Bob Moore]

Dudley Henriques wrote
> Steve and I knew each other quite well many years ago when he was a
> partner in the old Valley Forge Airport in Pa. His partner had a
> French wife you had to see to believe. If I remember right (and who
> could forget her..her name was Yvette. :-)

That would have been Norm Hortman....a TWA B-747 Captain, and Yvette
was a former TWA Flight Attendant. Norm would later own the old 3M
airport just north of Philly. He and Yvette had a Part 141 Certificate
and School. I got my CFI/CFII there about 3-4 years after joining
PanAm.

Norm would fly to JFK for his TWA flights in an Aztec. Yvette became an
ATP flying him back and forth. She managed the Part 141 School and was
a real "BITCH".

Some years later, Norm bought the farm when the battery in the Aztec
broke loose in IMC turbulent conditions and started an inflight fire.

Norm was one of the original American AA-1 Yankee distributors and I
was doing some part time work for one of his dealers across the river
at the Burlington, Co. airport. I still have a picture of Norm and myself
and a AA-1.

Bob Moore

[Mark Hansen]

On 06/12/07 13:01, Jay Somerset wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:24:02 -0000, Jim Logajan >
> wrote:

[ snip ]

>>
>>Sigh. Yes, the force that is felt is greater then one g-force at the
>>beginning and end of the maneuver. But that is not the case "during the
>>roll" itself. Again, as in the other post of yours I responded to, you
>>appear to be confusing force and acceleration.
>
> Not a serious confusion, as force and acceleration are stricly
> proportional (F=mA) as long as the mass of the object (plane) is not
> changing. Over the time intervals involved, not enough fuel is burned
> to significantly change the mass. Now, if the pilot scares the s--t
> out of himself during the manouver, then the proportionality might not
> hold up. :-)

Well, unless the pilot had his arse hanging out the window at the time,
I think there's still no change in overall mass ;-)

> ---
> Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)

By the way, if you're trying to make a signature line, you need the
first line to be dash dash space, not dash dash dash - FYI.

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 16:06:36 -0400, Bob Moore > said:

> Dudley Henriques wrote
>> Steve and I knew each other quite well many years ago when he was a
>> partner in the old Valley Forge Airport in Pa. His partner had a
>> French wife you had to see to believe. If I remember right (and who
>> could forget her..her name was Yvette. :-)
>
> That would have been Norm Hortman....a TWA B-747 Captain, and Yvette
> was a former TWA Flight Attendant. Norm would later own the old 3M
> airport just north of Philly. He and Yvette had a Part 141 Certificate
> and School. I got my CFI/CFII there about 3-4 years after joining
> PanAm.
>
> Norm would fly to JFK for his TWA flights in an Aztec. Yvette became an
> ATP flying him back and forth. She managed the Part 141 School and was
> a real "BITCH".
>
> Some years later, Norm bought the farm when the battery in the Aztec
> broke loose in IMC turbulent conditions and started an inflight fire.
>
> Norm was one of the original American AA-1 Yankee distributors and I
> was doing some part time work for one of his dealers across the river
> at the Burlington, Co. airport. I still have a picture of Norm and myself
> and a AA-1.
>
> Bob Moore

I remember the Hortman's well, and you and I are for once in complete
agreement on Mrs. Hortman :-) Her "attitude" was a legend in Pa.
I instructed over at Burlington County when it was Cameron Field. At
that time it was owned by Dave and Phil Cohen who also owned an
ornamental iron works factory if I remember right. The guy I worked for
at Cameron was a real character named Orville Jenkins.
Between Orville going off flying a Goose all the time and me getting
stuck with all the students and dodging parachutes all day long, life
was interesting to say the least.
Do you remember Bill Whitsell from over at Flying W or Freddy Tonyas.
Fred grabbed my AT6 one evening over at Clementon and buzzed the
Silverlake Inn. They got the number and it took me two days to convince
the fuzz it wasn't me. Fred I believe ended up a Captain for United,
and Whitesell was an Eastern Captain who worked a great deal on his
medical insurance I think. Anyway, the money to build Flying W had to
come from somewhere :-)
Tonyas at last look was living in Whitsells house over at Flying W, and
the Cohens had turnedCameron Field into an industrial park which I
believe is not Burlington County Airport.
But the guy who was Snyder's partner with the wife named Yvette was
another guy. I just can't remember his name off the top of my head but
it definately wasn't Hortman and was another Yvette.
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 16:23:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques > said:

> On 2007-06-12 16:06:36 -0400, Bob Moore > said:
>
> the Cohens had turnedCameron Field into an industrial park which I
> believe is not Burlington County Airport.

Should read is NOW Burlington County Airport.
>
> Dudley Henriques

[Bob Moore]

Dudley Henriques wrote
> Do you remember Bill Whitsell from over at Flying W

Yes...Bill wanted to buy his son an airplane and asked me to
demonstrate the Yankee to him. Unfortunately, it was fully
fueled. The stall warning started at liftoff and continued
until the wheels were back on the ground 5-10 min. later. To
say that Bill was somewhat large is a gross understatement.
He immediately decided not to buy a Yankee.

Bob Moore

[Bob Moore]

Dudley Henriques wrote

> Should read is NOW Burlington County Airport.

Google Earth says that it is "South Jersey Regional".

Bob

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 16:39:31 -0400, Bob Moore > said:

> Dudley Henriques wrote
>> Do you remember Bill Whitsell from over at Flying W
>
> Yes...Bill wanted to buy his son an airplane and asked me to
> demonstrate the Yankee to him. Unfortunately, it was fully
> fueled. The stall warning started at liftoff and continued
> until the wheels were back on the ground 5-10 min. later. To
> say that Bill was somewhat large is a gross understatement.
> He immediately decided not to buy a Yankee.
>
> Bob Moore

Yup. That sounds like Bill...flowing white mane and all. He was quite a
salesman too. I remember one day I had a P51 over at Flying W sitting
around next to the pool shooting the bull with Milo Ticheck (one of
Bill's instructors at the time) when in flew Bob Cummings (the actor)
in a beautiful D18 Beech. Before dinner was over, Bill had bought the
D18, sold Cummings an Aztec and if I remember right, an interest in the
airport as well.
You just HAVE to admire that caliber of talent :-)
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:2007061215505916807-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-12 15:35:34 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>>
>> Oh yeah. The FAA guy was a poacher turned gamekeeper and knew what he
>> was talking about.
>
> I see you've dealt with them as well :-)))
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I used to work for Albie, btw... most of my flying in tht area was at
>> Van Sant, though..
>>
>>
>> those were the days..
>
> God, for a second there I thought I might have figured out who you
> were. I thought for a moment you might be Bert Size from HiLine
> Montgomeryville Airport. Ed Size was his father and ran Hi Line. I
> used to instruct there with Bert. That would mean you and I had
> actually worked and flown together at one time. Man, now THAT would be
> a small world!!!!

Mmm, no, i don't know them. Vitao Bruzas and Vern Moyer, yes.

> The gang from Hi Line would fly up to Van Sant and just sit around on
> the grass shooting the pervibal bull. Van Sant was a great little
> field for just playing around with airplanes as I'm sure you know.

Oh yes, I know. I have flown many many hours there.

> You're right, those days were the most fun you could have with your
> clothes on and we'll never see the likes of them again I'm afraid.

Nope.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Bob Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> Dudley Henriques wrote
>> Steve and I knew each other quite well many years ago when he was a
>> partner in the old Valley Forge Airport in Pa. His partner had a
>> French wife you had to see to believe. If I remember right (and who
>> could forget her..her name was Yvette. :-)
>
> That would have been Norm Hortman....a TWA B-747 Captain, and Yvette
> was a former TWA Flight Attendant. Norm would later own the old 3M
> airport just north of Philly. He and Yvette had a Part 141 Certificate
> and School. I got my CFI/CFII there about 3-4 years after joining
> PanAm.
>
> Norm would fly to JFK for his TWA flights in an Aztec. Yvette became
> an ATP flying him back and forth. She managed the Part 141 School and
> was a real "BITCH".
>

Oh yes, famous, she was..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:2007061216233516807-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-12 16:06:36 -0400, Bob Moore >
> said:
>
>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>> Steve and I knew each other quite well many years ago when he was a
>>> partner in the old Valley Forge Airport in Pa. His partner had a
>>> French wife you had to see to believe. If I remember right (and who
>>> could forget her..her name was Yvette. :-)
>>
>> That would have been Norm Hortman....a TWA B-747 Captain, and Yvette
>> was a former TWA Flight Attendant. Norm would later own the old 3M
>> airport just north of Philly. He and Yvette had a Part 141
>> Certificate and School. I got my CFI/CFII there about 3-4 years
>> after joining PanAm.
>>
>> Norm would fly to JFK for his TWA flights in an Aztec. Yvette became
>> an ATP flying him back and forth. She managed the Part 141 School
>> and was a real "BITCH".
>>
>> Some years later, Norm bought the farm when the battery in the Aztec
>> broke loose in IMC turbulent conditions and started an inflight fire.
>>
>> Norm was one of the original American AA-1 Yankee distributors and I
>> was doing some part time work for one of his dealers across the river
>> at the Burlington, Co. airport. I still have a picture of Norm and
>> myself and a AA-1.
>>
>> Bob Moore
>
> I remember the Hortman's well, and you and I are for once in complete
> agreement on Mrs. Hortman :-) Her "attitude" was a legend in Pa.
> I instructed over at Burlington County when it was Cameron Field. At
> that time it was owned by Dave and Phil Cohen who also owned an
> ornamental iron works factory if I remember right. The guy I worked
> for at Cameron was a real character named Orville Jenkins.
> Between Orville going off flying a Goose all the time and me getting
> stuck with all the students and dodging parachutes all day long, life
> was interesting to say the least.
> Do you remember Bill Whitsell from over at Flying W or Freddy Tonyas.
> Fred grabbed my AT6 one evening over at Clementon and buzzed the
> Silverlake Inn. They got the number and it took me two days to
> convince the fuzz it wasn't me. Fred I believe ended up a Captain for
> United, and Whitesell was an Eastern Captain who worked a great deal
> on his medical insurance I think. Anyway, the money to build Flying W
> had to come from somewhere :-)


Holy ****.. How old are you?

You must have known Bob Cummings then..
I knew some of the guys who flew C-46's out of Flying W in their early
days.. And you must have known Al Syther..

> Tonyas at last look was living in Whitsells house over at Flying W,
> and the Cohens had turnedCameron Field into an industrial park which I
> believe is not Burlington County Airport.
> But the guy who was Snyder's partner with the wife named Yvette was
> another guy. I just can't remember his name off the top of my head but
> it definately wasn't Hortman and was another Yvette.

That's right. I knew them both and it wasn't the Hortmans. I can't see
them getting on with Steve, or anyone else for that matter. Only the
most desperate would look for a job at 3M.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:2007061217045650073-
dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-12 16:39:31 -0400, Bob Moore > said:
>
>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>> Do you remember Bill Whitsell from over at Flying W
>>
>> Yes...Bill wanted to buy his son an airplane and asked me to
>> demonstrate the Yankee to him. Unfortunately, it was fully
>> fueled. The stall warning started at liftoff and continued
>> until the wheels were back on the ground 5-10 min. later. To
>> say that Bill was somewhat large is a gross understatement.
>> He immediately decided not to buy a Yankee.
>>
>> Bob Moore
>
> Yup. That sounds like Bill...flowing white mane and all. He was quite a
> salesman too. I remember one day I had a P51 over at Flying W sitting
> around next to the pool shooting the bull with Milo Ticheck (one of
> Bill's instructors at the time) when in flew Bob Cummings (the actor)
> in a beautiful D18 Beech. Before dinner was over, Bill had bought the
> D18, sold Cummings an Aztec and if I remember right, an interest in the
> airport as well.
> You just HAVE to admire that caliber of talent :-)

Yes, that's right. Bob had a share in flying W. I only ever saw it from the
air, long closed. It's airplane shaped swimming pool a Hollywood Boulevard
style ghost of aviation as it once had been..


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 17:15:02 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> news:2007061216233516807-dhenriques@rcncom:
>
>> On 2007-06-12 16:06:36 -0400, Bob Moore >
>> said:
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>>> Steve and I knew each other quite well many years ago when he was a
>>>> partner in the old Valley Forge Airport in Pa. His partner had a
>>>> French wife you had to see to believe. If I remember right (and who
>>>> could forget her..her name was Yvette. :-)
>>>
>>> That would have been Norm Hortman....a TWA B-747 Captain, and Yvette
>>> was a former TWA Flight Attendant. Norm would later own the old 3M
>>> airport just north of Philly. He and Yvette had a Part 141
>>> Certificate and School. I got my CFI/CFII there about 3-4 years
>>> after joining PanAm.
>>>
>>> Norm would fly to JFK for his TWA flights in an Aztec. Yvette became
>>> an ATP flying him back and forth. She managed the Part 141 School
>>> and was a real "BITCH".
>>>
>>> Some years later, Norm bought the farm when the battery in the Aztec
>>> broke loose in IMC turbulent conditions and started an inflight fire.
>>>
>>> Norm was one of the original American AA-1 Yankee distributors and I
>>> was doing some part time work for one of his dealers across the river
>>> at the Burlington, Co. airport. I still have a picture of Norm and
>>> myself and a AA-1.
>>>
>>> Bob Moore
>>
>> I remember the Hortman's well, and you and I are for once in complete
>> agreement on Mrs. Hortman :-) Her "attitude" was a legend in Pa.
>> I instructed over at Burlington County when it was Cameron Field. At
>> that time it was owned by Dave and Phil Cohen who also owned an
>> ornamental iron works factory if I remember right. The guy I worked
>> for at Cameron was a real character named Orville Jenkins.
>> Between Orville going off flying a Goose all the time and me getting
>> stuck with all the students and dodging parachutes all day long, life
>> was interesting to say the least.
>> Do you remember Bill Whitsell from over at Flying W or Freddy Tonyas.
>> Fred grabbed my AT6 one evening over at Clementon and buzzed the
>> Silverlake Inn. They got the number and it took me two days to
>> convince the fuzz it wasn't me. Fred I believe ended up a Captain for
>> United, and Whitesell was an Eastern Captain who worked a great deal
>> on his medical insurance I think. Anyway, the money to build Flying W
>> had to come from somewhere :-)
>
>
> Holy ****.. How old are you?

You don't really want to know do you? :-)))
>
> You must have known Bob Cummings then..

I met him the day Whitesell sold him the Aztec. He had come in to do a
show at the Valley Forge Music Fair and he took a few of us along that
night as his guests. VERY nice guy, and really a pleasure to be around.
He showed us his FAA license. The number was the lowest I had ever seen.
Along with getting to know Cummings that night I had another lucky
encounter. I went out to the hot dog stand to get a dog and this very
attractive woman was standing there in costume from the show eating a
dog. It was Juliet Prowse. Real nice people in that show
:-))
> I knew some of the guys who flew C-46's out of Flying W in their early
> days.. And you must have known Al Syther..
Don't remember him, but I do remember Zantop flying those Curtis
Electric Prop C46 Doom Buggies out of Wilmington.
>
>> Tonyas at last look was living in Whitsells house over at Flying W,
>> and the Cohens had turnedCameron Field into an industrial park which I
>> believe is not Burlington County Airport.
>> But the guy who was Snyder's partner with the wife named Yvette was
>> another guy. I just can't remember his name off the top of my head but
>> it definately wasn't Hortman and was another Yvette.
>
> That's right. I knew them both and it wasn't the Hortmans. I can't see
> them getting on with Steve, or anyone else for that matter. Only the
> most desperate would look for a job at 3M.

His name was Doug something.
Dudley

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:200706121728118930-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-12 17:15:02 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> news:2007061216233516807-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>
>>> On 2007-06-12 16:06:36 -0400, Bob Moore >
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>>>> Steve and I knew each other quite well many years ago when he was
>>>>> a partner in the old Valley Forge Airport in Pa. His partner had a
>>>>> French wife you had to see to believe. If I remember right (and
>>>>> who could forget her..her name was Yvette. :-)
>>>>
>>>> That would have been Norm Hortman....a TWA B-747 Captain, and
>>>> Yvette was a former TWA Flight Attendant. Norm would later own the
>>>> old 3M airport just north of Philly. He and Yvette had a Part 141
>>>> Certificate and School. I got my CFI/CFII there about 3-4 years
>>>> after joining PanAm.
>>>>
>>>> Norm would fly to JFK for his TWA flights in an Aztec. Yvette
>>>> became an ATP flying him back and forth. She managed the Part 141
>>>> School and was a real "BITCH".
>>>>
>>>> Some years later, Norm bought the farm when the battery in the
>>>> Aztec broke loose in IMC turbulent conditions and started an
>>>> inflight fire.
>>>>
>>>> Norm was one of the original American AA-1 Yankee distributors and
>>>> I was doing some part time work for one of his dealers across the
>>>> river at the Burlington, Co. airport. I still have a picture of
>>>> Norm and myself and a AA-1.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Moore
>>>
>>> I remember the Hortman's well, and you and I are for once in
>>> complete agreement on Mrs. Hortman :-) Her "attitude" was a legend
>>> in Pa. I instructed over at Burlington County when it was Cameron
>>> Field. At that time it was owned by Dave and Phil Cohen who also
>>> owned an ornamental iron works factory if I remember right. The guy
>>> I worked for at Cameron was a real character named Orville Jenkins.
>>> Between Orville going off flying a Goose all the time and me getting
>>> stuck with all the students and dodging parachutes all day long,
>>> life was interesting to say the least.
>>> Do you remember Bill Whitsell from over at Flying W or Freddy
>>> Tonyas. Fred grabbed my AT6 one evening over at Clementon and buzzed
>>> the Silverlake Inn. They got the number and it took me two days to
>>> convince the fuzz it wasn't me. Fred I believe ended up a Captain
>>> for United, and Whitesell was an Eastern Captain who worked a great
>>> deal on his medical insurance I think. Anyway, the money to build
>>> Flying W had to come from somewhere :-)
>>
>>
>> Holy ****.. How old are you?
>
> You don't really want to know do you? :-)))
>>
>> You must have known Bob Cummings then..
>
> I met him the day Whitesell sold him the Aztec. He had come in to do a
> show at the Valley Forge Music Fair and he took a few of us along that
> night as his guests. VERY nice guy, and really a pleasure to be
> around. He showed us his FAA license. The number was the lowest I had
> ever seen.

Bet it wasn't lower than Chet Vogt's! Did you know him?


Along with getting to know Cummings that night I had
> another lucky encounter. I went out to the hot dog stand to get a dog
> and this very attractive woman was standing there in costume from the
> show eating a dog. It was Juliet Prowse. Real nice people in that show
>:-))


Cool.


>> I knew some of the guys who flew C-46's out of Flying W in their
>> early days.. And you must have known Al Syther..
> Don't remember him, but I do remember Zantop flying those Curtis
> Electric Prop C46 Doom Buggies out of Wilmington.

Well, Al didn't fly C-46s. he was just around there since forever. He
was managing BCA when I hauled jumpers for Steve.

>>
>>> Tonyas at last look was living in Whitsells house over at Flying W,
>>> and the Cohens had turnedCameron Field into an industrial park which
>>> I believe is not Burlington County Airport.
>>> But the guy who was Snyder's partner with the wife named Yvette was
>>> another guy. I just can't remember his name off the top of my head
>>> but it definately wasn't Hortman and was another Yvette.
>>
>> That's right. I knew them both and it wasn't the Hortmans. I can't
>> see them getting on with Steve, or anyone else for that matter. Only
>> the most desperate would look for a job at 3M.
>
> His name was Doug something.

mmm, don't remember. I met them OK, but that's all.
You must have also known Sal Labate before his fall from grace. I also
knew Nick D'Appuzo quite well, and was hoping to at last buy a set of
flying wires but alas he was finished before my project. I also met Ed
Mahler and Rod Joslin, obviously because of Nick.
I can never see "Cheers" without thinking of Nick ;)



Bertie

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 17:37:24 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> I also met Ed
> Mahler and Rod Joslin, obviously because of Nick.
> I can never see "Cheers" without thinking of Nick ;)
>
> I don't remember the others, but I knew Big Ed and of course knew Rod
> from his acro work also. Both were great pilots. Ed of course bought
> the farm on a photo shoot when the tail came off his bird. I lost track
> of Joslin and don't know where he ended up.
Ed and Bobby Fisher and Corky Fornof formed the first BD5 jet team.
Cork and I still communicate sometimes. He's living out in Houston and
still doing movie work. His dad Bill of course went in at Quonset Point
the same day as the Cape May Race disaster down at the shore.
I lost two friends in the T6 race that day; 5 went in. REAL bad day!!
Dudley

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 18:02:02 -0400, Dudley Henriques > said:

> On 2007-06-12 17:37:24 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>
>> I also met Ed
>> Mahler and Rod Joslin, obviously because of Nick.
>> I can never see "Cheers" without thinking of Nick ;)
>>
>> I don't remember the others, but I knew Big Ed and of course knew Rod
>> from his acro work also. Both were great pilots. Ed of course bought
>> the farm on a photo shoot when the tail came off his bird. I lost track
>> of Joslin and don't know where he ended up.

> Ed and Bobby Fisher and Corky Fornof formed the first BD5 jet team.

God, I must be thinking chess today for some reason. That's Bobby
Bishop not Bobby Fisher!!! :-))))
DH

>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:2007061218020227544-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-12 17:37:24 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>> I also met Ed
>> Mahler and Rod Joslin, obviously because of Nick.
>> I can never see "Cheers" without thinking of Nick ;)
>>
>> I don't remember the others, but I knew Big Ed and of course knew Rod
>> from his acro work also. Both were great pilots. Ed of course bought
>> the farm on a photo shoot when the tail came off his bird. I lost
>> track of Joslin and don't know where he ended up.
> Ed and Bobby Fisher and Corky Fornof formed the first BD5 jet team.
> Cork and I still communicate sometimes. He's living out in Houston and
> still doing movie work. His dad Bill of course went in at Quonset
> Point the same day as the Cape May Race disaster down at the shore.
> I lost two friends in the T6 race that day; 5 went in. REAL bad day!!
> Dudley

Yes, I saw it... Also the first time I saw Bob Hoover fly..


Bertie

[Bob Moore]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote
> You must have also known Sal Labate before his fall from grace.

Ah yes....Uncle Sal. :-) Sal had to do something with all of that
ill gotten money, so he started Guy America Airways to be fronted
by his nephew Tony Terri who took a leave from his PanAm FE job.

I flew B-707s there for about a year. Also served as Manager of
Flight Crew Training and B-707 Check Airman.

Nobody ever figured out what Uncle Sal was supposed to be doing back
there in a corner all by himself. Our headquarters was located in
Queens.

Of course, we had all heard about Sal's medical retirement from an
American Airlines DC-10 Captain job with a "funny" heart attack.

Do you know the real truth about Sal?

Bob

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:2007061218020227544-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-12 17:37:24 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>> I also met Ed
>> Mahler and Rod Joslin, obviously because of Nick.
>> I can never see "Cheers" without thinking of Nick ;)
>>
>> I don't remember the others, but I knew Big Ed and of course knew Rod
>> from his acro work also. Both were great pilots. Ed of course bought
>> the farm on a photo shoot when the tail came off his bird. I lost
>> track of Joslin and don't know where he ended up.

I don't know either. Saw him fly a few times. He frequented VanSant as did
Ed. Ed's PJ had a dual set of tail wires on it and on the day th efilm crew
was there one was broken, so he took the front set off supposedly saying
he'd flown with worse damage. He didnt' get to far before the stab
collapsed. Nick was devastated. We had a very , um, unlucky EAA chapter
altogether..




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Bob Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote
>> You must have also known Sal Labate before his fall from grace.
>
> Ah yes....Uncle Sal. :-) Sal had to do something with all of that
> ill gotten money, so he started Guy America Airways to be fronted
> by his nephew Tony Terri who took a leave from his PanAm FE job.
>
> I flew B-707s there for about a year. Also served as Manager of
> Flight Crew Training and B-707 Check Airman.

For PAA or GAA?
>
> Nobody ever figured out what Uncle Sal was supposed to be doing back
> there in a corner all by himself. Our headquarters was located in
> Queens.
>
> Of course, we had all heard about Sal's medical retirement from an
> American Airlines DC-10 Captain job with a "funny" heart attack.
>
> Do you know the real truth about Sal?

Well, I know about where he got some of his money, alright. I know about
the Douglas in the forest, too. I heard he wormed his way out of the
mess somehow as well..
I met him a good few times. He was always around invovled in some
hairbrained scheme or another. I remember he had a "Flying Circus" he
based at Woodbine, NJ, close to the shore. they had a Sopwith Camel
Replica, a Fokker DR1 and a Stampe as well as a Cub and a couple of
other things to give rides in. They advertised on the radio most of the
summer for their weekend airshows but I doubt that more than a few
hundred came to see it all summer.. Half the time they couldn't get the
airplanes started. Actually the best part of it was a flying fool act
done by some local farmer in a Cub and Sal's Stampe display, which was
quite tidy.. One of my friends was involved with him repairing some of
his airplanes when he was stil in high school so I was up at his place
on the Delaware a couple of times with him. He had some cool airplanes!

There are an incredible number of scoundrels involved in aviation!

Chuck Weldon is another one who springs to mind..


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 18:23:41 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> Bob Moore > wrote in
> 46.128:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote
>>> You must have also known Sal Labate before his fall from grace.
>>
>> Ah yes....Uncle Sal. :-) Sal had to do something with all of that
>> ill gotten money, so he started Guy America Airways to be fronted
>> by his nephew Tony Terri who took a leave from his PanAm FE job.
>>
>> I flew B-707s there for about a year. Also served as Manager of
>> Flight Crew Training and B-707 Check Airman.
>
> For PAA or GAA?
>>
>> Nobody ever figured out what Uncle Sal was supposed to be doing back
>> there in a corner all by himself. Our headquarters was located in
>> Queens.
>>
>> Of course, we had all heard about Sal's medical retirement from an
>> American Airlines DC-10 Captain job with a "funny" heart attack.
>>
>> Do you know the real truth about Sal?
>
> Well, I know about where he got some of his money, alright. I know about
> the Douglas in the forest, too. I heard he wormed his way out of the
> mess somehow as well..
> I met him a good few times. He was always around invovled in some
> hairbrained scheme or another. I remember he had a "Flying Circus" he
> based at Woodbine, NJ, close to the shore. they had a Sopwith Camel
> Replica, a Fokker DR1 and a Stampe as well as a Cub and a couple of
> other things to give rides in. They advertised on the radio most of the
> summer for their weekend airshows but I doubt that more than a few
> hundred came to see it all summer.. Half the time they couldn't get the
> airplanes started. Actually the best part of it was a flying fool act
> done by some local farmer in a Cub and Sal's Stampe display, which was
> quite tidy.. One of my friends was involved with him repairing some of
> his airplanes when he was stil in high school so I was up at his place
> on the Delaware a couple of times with him. He had some cool airplanes!
>
> There are an incredible number of scoundrels involved in aviation!
>
> Chuck Weldon is another one who springs to mind..
>
>
> Bertie

Don't forget Jim Bede, not that he was a scoundrel, but what a mess
they made of the BD5 kit situation :-))
And then there was Jesse Stallings and Capitol Airways operating out of
Symyrna Georgia and Wilmington Delaware and Anchorage Alaska. I knew
their chief pilot fairly well. We shared a Cessna 336 together. I
learned more about loose good looking women and good booze from the
good folks at Capitol then I did anywhere else in my entire career in
aviation
:-)
Dudley

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:2007061218562916807-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-12 18:23:41 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>> Bob Moore > wrote in
>> 46.128:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote
>>>> You must have also known Sal Labate before his fall from grace.
>>>
>>> Ah yes....Uncle Sal. :-) Sal had to do something with all of that
>>> ill gotten money, so he started Guy America Airways to be fronted
>>> by his nephew Tony Terri who took a leave from his PanAm FE job.
>>>
>>> I flew B-707s there for about a year. Also served as Manager of
>>> Flight Crew Training and B-707 Check Airman.
>>
>> For PAA or GAA?
>>>
>>> Nobody ever figured out what Uncle Sal was supposed to be doing back
>>> there in a corner all by himself. Our headquarters was located in
>>> Queens.
>>>
>>> Of course, we had all heard about Sal's medical retirement from an
>>> American Airlines DC-10 Captain job with a "funny" heart attack.
>>>
>>> Do you know the real truth about Sal?
>>
>> Well, I know about where he got some of his money, alright. I know
>> about the Douglas in the forest, too. I heard he wormed his way out
>> of the mess somehow as well..
>> I met him a good few times. He was always around invovled in some
>> hairbrained scheme or another. I remember he had a "Flying Circus" he
>> based at Woodbine, NJ, close to the shore. they had a Sopwith Camel
>> Replica, a Fokker DR1 and a Stampe as well as a Cub and a couple of
>> other things to give rides in. They advertised on the radio most of
>> the summer for their weekend airshows but I doubt that more than a
>> few hundred came to see it all summer.. Half the time they couldn't
>> get the airplanes started. Actually the best part of it was a flying
>> fool act done by some local farmer in a Cub and Sal's Stampe display,
>> which was quite tidy.. One of my friends was involved with him
>> repairing some of his airplanes when he was stil in high school so I
>> was up at his place on the Delaware a couple of times with him. He
>> had some cool airplanes!
>>
>> There are an incredible number of scoundrels involved in aviation!
>>
>> Chuck Weldon is another one who springs to mind..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Don't forget Jim Bede, not that he was a scoundrel, but what a mess
> they made of the BD5 kit situation :-))

Oh God. Never even saw him, even at Osh or Rockford, but the devastation
left in his wake is truly astonishing..
You must have met his nitwit minion Juan over in RAH at some point..

> And then there was Jesse Stallings and Capitol Airways operating out
> of Symyrna Georgia and Wilmington Delaware and Anchorage Alaska. I
> knew their chief pilot fairly well. We shared a Cessna 336 together. I
> learned more about loose good looking women and good booze from the
> good folks at Capitol then I did anywhere else in my entire career in
> aviation

I rode on them once. Never have I met a woman more deserving of the
title "broad" than their #1.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 19:03:46 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

>>
>
> I rode on them once. Never have I met a woman more deserving of the
> title "broad" than their #1.

That would be Carol Bowersox I'll bet. Carol was chief stew in charge
of training and one HELL of a woman :-))
>
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:2007061219085050073-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-12 19:03:46 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>>>
>>
>> I rode on them once. Never have I met a woman more deserving of the
>> title "broad" than their #1.
>
> That would be Carol Bowersox I'll bet. Carol was chief stew in charge
> of training and one HELL of a woman :-))
>>

Well, they were all pretty, um, "Brooklynish".

I got a free drink on the airline due to a massive delay. whe I went up to
the Stew's station looking for another I found her slumped in her seat,
shoes off, her feet parked up on the bulkhead in front of her doing her
nails.
"May I have another G&T", says I.
"Yeh,, it's an da lockah down dere, get it yerself, two bucks" Says she.

Classy.

I also remember that whoever was driving (DC-8) was the coarsest pilot on
the stick I had ever been behind (I've met worse since) all manuevering was
done with an ey to moving the airplane as quickly as possible to the
bank/pitch desired.. It was like being in space mountain..

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 19:20:16 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> news:2007061219085050073-dhenriques@rcncom:
>
>> On 2007-06-12 19:03:46 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
>> said:
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I rode on them once. Never have I met a woman more deserving of the
>>> title "broad" than their #1.
>>
>> That would be Carol Bowersox I'll bet. Carol was chief stew in charge
>> of training and one HELL of a woman :-))
>>>
>
> Well, they were all pretty, um, "Brooklynish".
>
> I got a free drink on the airline due to a massive delay. whe I went up to
> the Stew's station looking for another I found her slumped in her seat,
> shoes off, her feet parked up on the bulkhead in front of her doing her
> nails.
> "May I have another G&T", says I.
> "Yeh,, it's an da lockah down dere, get it yerself, two bucks" Says she.
>
> Classy.
>
> I also remember that whoever was driving (DC-8) was the coarsest pilot on
> the stick I had ever been behind (I've met worse since) all manuevering was
> done with an ey to moving the airplane as quickly as possible to the
> bank/pitch desired.. It was like being in space mountain..
>
> Bertie

Yeah, the girls could be a bit "laid back" at times :-))

Sounds like one of the stretch 8's you were in. If I recall, that bird
had a double rotation bug on the ADI requiring an initial rotation,
then another to avoid nailing the tail on takeoff. The Capitol guys did
catch the tail a few times as I remember :-))
They had some good drivers and some bad ones like every outfit I guess.
I know Jack Selby was one of the best sticks I ever flew with. Jack was
Capitol's CP, and Gus Musante was also very good.
Gus had a Ryan PT22 that was beautifully restored. If you could fly
that thing without breaking your neck, you could fly anything.
Dudley

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:2007061219422216807-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-12 19:20:16 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> news:2007061219085050073-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>
>>> On 2007-06-12 19:03:46 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > said:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I rode on them once. Never have I met a woman more deserving of the
>>>> title "broad" than their #1.
>>>
>>> That would be Carol Bowersox I'll bet. Carol was chief stew in
>>> charge of training and one HELL of a woman :-))
>>>>
>>
>> Well, they were all pretty, um, "Brooklynish".
>>
>> I got a free drink on the airline due to a massive delay. whe I went
>> up to the Stew's station looking for another I found her slumped in
>> her seat, shoes off, her feet parked up on the bulkhead in front of
>> her doing her nails.
>> "May I have another G&T", says I.
>> "Yeh,, it's an da lockah down dere, get it yerself, two bucks" Says
>> she.
>>
>> Classy.
>>
>> I also remember that whoever was driving (DC-8) was the coarsest
>> pilot on the stick I had ever been behind (I've met worse since) all
>> manuevering was done with an ey to moving the airplane as quickly as
>> possible to the bank/pitch desired.. It was like being in space
>> mountain..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yeah, the girls could be a bit "laid back" at times :-))
>
> Sounds like one of the stretch 8's you were in. If I recall, that
> bird had a double rotation bug on the ADI requiring an initial
> rotation, then another to avoid nailing the tail on takeoff. The
> Capitol guys did catch the tail a few times as I remember :-))

Mm, wouldn't be surprised. It was a stretch 8, allright. no partitions,
either. You could clearly see the fuselage flex from the inside during
rotation..

> They had some good drivers and some bad ones like every outfit I
> guess. I know Jack Selby was one of the best sticks I ever flew with.
> Jack was Capitol's CP, and Gus Musante was also very good.
> Gus had a Ryan PT22 that was beautifully restored. If you could fly
> that thing without breaking your neck, you could fly anything.
> Dudley
>

I have flown one of those without breaking my neck!

Didn';t do the guy that built the GeeBee E replica any good, though. He
got a PT 22 checkout and then bent his airplane on his very first flight
in it (after Delmar Benjiman pronounced it sound) I think the guy's name
was Crosby who built it.

I liked the Ryan. There as an STA at Van Sant also, but I never was
invited to fly it..


Bertie

Bertie

[Bob Moore]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote

> For PAA or GAA?

GAA....Came there from the Chief Pilot job at Aero Airways in
Miami. Had maintenance and fuel problems there with the owner.

Bob

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Bob Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote
>
>> For PAA or GAA?
>
> GAA....Came there from the Chief Pilot job at Aero Airways in
> Miami. Had maintenance and fuel problems there with the owner.
>

No! I've never heard of such a thing in aviation! Especailly in Miami!


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-12 19:48:43 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> news:2007061219422216807-dhenriques@rcncom:
>
>> On 2007-06-12 19:20:16 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
>> said:
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> news:2007061219085050073-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>
>>>> On 2007-06-12 19:03:46 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>> > said:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I rode on them once. Never have I met a woman more deserving of the
>>>>> title "broad" than their #1.
>>>>
>>>> That would be Carol Bowersox I'll bet. Carol was chief stew in
>>>> charge of training and one HELL of a woman :-))
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, they were all pretty, um, "Brooklynish".
>>>
>>> I got a free drink on the airline due to a massive delay. whe I went
>>> up to the Stew's station looking for another I found her slumped in
>>> her seat, shoes off, her feet parked up on the bulkhead in front of
>>> her doing her nails.
>>> "May I have another G&T", says I.
>>> "Yeh,, it's an da lockah down dere, get it yerself, two bucks" Says
>>> she.
>>>
>>> Classy.
>>>
>>> I also remember that whoever was driving (DC-8) was the coarsest
>>> pilot on the stick I had ever been behind (I've met worse since) all
>>> manuevering was done with an ey to moving the airplane as quickly as
>>> possible to the bank/pitch desired.. It was like being in space
>>> mountain..
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Yeah, the girls could be a bit "laid back" at times :-))
>>
>> Sounds like one of the stretch 8's you were in. If I recall, that
>> bird had a double rotation bug on the ADI requiring an initial
>> rotation, then another to avoid nailing the tail on takeoff. The
>> Capitol guys did catch the tail a few times as I remember :-))
>
> Mm, wouldn't be surprised. It was a stretch 8, allright. no partitions,
> either. You could clearly see the fuselage flex from the inside during
> rotation..
>
>> They had some good drivers and some bad ones like every outfit I
>> guess. I know Jack Selby was one of the best sticks I ever flew with.
>> Jack was Capitol's CP, and Gus Musante was also very good.
>> Gus had a Ryan PT22 that was beautifully restored. If you could fly
>> that thing without breaking your neck, you could fly anything.
>> Dudley
>>
>
> I have flown one of those without breaking my neck!
>
> Didn';t do the guy that built the GeeBee E replica any good, though. He
> got a PT 22 checkout and then bent his airplane on his very first flight
> in it (after Delmar Benjiman pronounced it sound) I think the guy's name
> was Crosby who built it.
>
> I liked the Ryan. There as an STA at Van Sant also, but I never was
> invited to fly it..
>
>
> Bertie
>
> Bertie

Great airplanes and great times. I'd do it all over again the same way.
I guess the only thing I might change is to have the ability to see bad
things about to happen to people I knew and have them possibly listen
to me when I told them "Don't do that!"
Oh well...it was a great ride. The planes were hot and so were the girls.
I carried a Teddy Bear with me in the right gun bay of the Mustang
along with a change of clothes for those damn rubber chicken dinners we
always had to attend at the show sites on Saturday nights. That Teddy
Bear got me hooked up with more female company then you could ever
imagine.....well..that and borrowing one of the Blues flight jackets
once in a while :-))
I guess we've taken this thread away from the OP and have set a new
record for thread creep by this time ole' buddy.
Dudley

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
news:2007061220071275249-dhenriques@rcncom:

> On 2007-06-12 19:48:43 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip >
> said:
>
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> news:2007061219422216807-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>
>>> On 2007-06-12 19:20:16 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > said:
>>>
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> news:2007061219085050073-dhenriques@rcncom:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2007-06-12 19:03:46 -0400, Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>> > said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I rode on them once. Never have I met a woman more deserving of
>>>>>> the title "broad" than their #1.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be Carol Bowersox I'll bet. Carol was chief stew in
>>>>> charge of training and one HELL of a woman :-))
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, they were all pretty, um, "Brooklynish".
>>>>
>>>> I got a free drink on the airline due to a massive delay. whe I
>>>> went up to the Stew's station looking for another I found her
>>>> slumped in her seat, shoes off, her feet parked up on the bulkhead
>>>> in front of her doing her nails.
>>>> "May I have another G&T", says I.
>>>> "Yeh,, it's an da lockah down dere, get it yerself, two bucks" Says
>>>> she.
>>>>
>>>> Classy.
>>>>
>>>> I also remember that whoever was driving (DC-8) was the coarsest
>>>> pilot on the stick I had ever been behind (I've met worse since)
>>>> all manuevering was done with an ey to moving the airplane as
>>>> quickly as possible to the bank/pitch desired.. It was like being
>>>> in space mountain..
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Yeah, the girls could be a bit "laid back" at times :-))
>>>
>>> Sounds like one of the stretch 8's you were in. If I recall, that
>>> bird had a double rotation bug on the ADI requiring an initial
>>> rotation, then another to avoid nailing the tail on takeoff. The
>>> Capitol guys did catch the tail a few times as I remember :-))
>>
>> Mm, wouldn't be surprised. It was a stretch 8, allright. no
>> partitions, either. You could clearly see the fuselage flex from the
>> inside during rotation..
>>
>>> They had some good drivers and some bad ones like every outfit I
>>> guess. I know Jack Selby was one of the best sticks I ever flew
>>> with. Jack was Capitol's CP, and Gus Musante was also very good.
>>> Gus had a Ryan PT22 that was beautifully restored. If you could fly
>>> that thing without breaking your neck, you could fly anything.
>>> Dudley
>>>
>>
>> I have flown one of those without breaking my neck!
>>
>> Didn';t do the guy that built the GeeBee E replica any good, though.
>> He got a PT 22 checkout and then bent his airplane on his very first
>> flight in it (after Delmar Benjiman pronounced it sound) I think the
>> guy's name was Crosby who built it.
>>
>> I liked the Ryan. There as an STA at Van Sant also, but I never was
>> invited to fly it..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Great airplanes and great times. I'd do it all over again the same
> way. I guess the only thing I might change is to have the ability to
> see bad things about to happen to people I knew and have them possibly
> listen to me when I told them "Don't do that!"

Yes. Fortunately noone ever bought it from not listening to me that I
know of, but certainly a couple of airplanes have been pranged that
way.. Not a lot of fun, that. The rest sure was (and stil is sometimes)
though..

> Oh well...it was a great ride. The planes were hot and so were the
> girls. I carried a Teddy Bear with me in the right gun bay of the
> Mustang along with a change of clothes for those damn rubber chicken
> dinners we always had to attend at the show sites on Saturday nights.
> That Teddy Bear got me hooked up with more female company then you
> could ever imagine.....well..that and borrowing one of the Blues
> flight jackets once in a while :-))
> I guess we've taken this thread away from

That'd probably do it! I only saw them fly a couple of times. Mostly in
the Phantoms, once with the F18s fairly recently.

I still fly with two teddy bears in my case... They don't get me any
action though..

the OP and have set a new
> record for thread creep by this time ole' buddy.

Um, yep.

[Gary[_2_]]

>
> Yes, that's right. Bob had a share in flying W. I only ever saw it from the
> air, long closed. It's airplane shaped swimming pool a Hollywood Boulevard
> style ghost of aviation as it once had been..
>
> Bertie

The Flying W in New Jersey? It's still open--I flew in there for the
first time a month ago. The airplane-shaped swimming pool is still
still there as well. Pretty cool place.

http://www.flyingwairport.com/

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Gary > wrote in
oups.com:

>
>>
>> Yes, that's right. Bob had a share in flying W. I only ever saw it
>> from the air, long closed. It's airplane shaped swimming pool a
>> Hollywood Boulevard style ghost of aviation as it once had been..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The Flying W in New Jersey? It's still open--I flew in there for the
> first time a month ago. The airplane-shaped swimming pool is still
> still there as well. Pretty cool place.
>

Ah, OK. Not still opened, re-opened. It was closed for many many years.

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Do you believe that a pilot at the top of a loop can experience
> possitive G's?

Absolutely.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> What happens to the g force acting on me as a pilot if I start in
> straight and level, unaccelerated flight, and then I initiate a
> coordinated turn?

The net force increases, as it results from both that induced by gravity
(which is constant) and that induced by your acceleration torwards the center
of the turn. In a coordinated, level turn, the force vector will be normal to
the airframe, and so you will have the impression that you are climbing
initially; when you finish the turn you'll have the impression that you are
descending briefly. This assumes that you keep your head level with the
wings.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Think about it- a roll on the vertical does not apply any g to the airplane.

Any change in direction accelerates the airplane, and thus applies Gs to it.

> During a vertical roll there is no acceleration in the z or y axes.

Any change in direction accelerates the airplane.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> What happens to the g force acting on me as a pilot if I start in
>> straight and level, unaccelerated flight, and then I initiate a
>> coordinated turn?
>
> The net force increases, as it results from both that induced by
> gravity (which is constant) and that induced by your acceleration
> torwards the center of the turn. In a coordinated, level turn, the
> force vector will be normal to the airframe, and so you will have the
> impression that you are climbing initially; when you finish the turn
> you'll have the impression that you are descending briefly. This
> assumes that you keep your head level with the wings.
>

You're an idiot.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Think about it- a roll on the vertical does not apply any g to the
>> airplane.
>
> Any change in direction accelerates the airplane, and thus applies Gs
> to it.
>
>> During a vertical roll there is no acceleration in the z or y axes.
>
> Any change in direction accelerates the airplane.
>

You're a fjukktard

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> Do you believe that a pilot at the top of a loop can experience
>> possitive G's?
>
> Absolutely.
>

You'll never ever do a loop fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

That's the point you idiot- there is no change in direction during a
vertical roll.


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Think about it- a roll on the vertical does not apply any g to the
>> airplane.
>
> Any change in direction accelerates the airplane, and thus applies Gs to
> it.
>
>> During a vertical roll there is no acceleration in the z or y axes.
>
> Any change in direction accelerates the airplane.

[[email protected]]

Got it. What happens to the g force acting on me as a pilot if I start
in straight and level, unaccelerated flight, and then I use down
elevator and enter a descent?



On Jun 13, 12:56 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > What happens to the g force acting on me as a pilot if I start in
> > straight and level, unaccelerated flight, and then I initiate a
> > coordinated turn?
>
> The net force increases, as it results from both that induced by gravity
> (which is constant) and that induced by your acceleration torwards the center
> of the turn. In a coordinated, level turn, the force vector will be normal to
> the airframe, and so you will have the impression that you are climbing
> initially; when you finish the turn you'll have the impression that you are
> descending briefly. This assumes that you keep your head level with the
> wings.

[Jon]

On Jun 13, 7:15 am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> That's the point you idiot- there is no change in direction during a
> vertical roll.

Kinda like trying to run underwater, isn't it?

Making the point, that is ;)

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Got it. What happens to the g force acting on me as a pilot if I start
> in straight and level, unaccelerated flight, and then I use down
> elevator and enter a descent?

As you descend, you are accelerated downward. This acceleration is subtracted
from the constant acceleration imposed by gravity. If your acceleration
downward is less than 1.0 G, you experience a diminished G force, unchanged in
direction. If it is equal to 1.0 G (which would be quite a feat), you will
experience no G force at all. If it is greater than 1.0 G (unlikely indeed),
you'll feel a negative G force tending to lift you out of your seat. These
changes persist only for as long as you are accelerating downward; once you
are descending at a steady rate, you will again experience exactly 1.0 G.

The latter circumstances are unlikely because accelerating downward at 1.0 G
would give you a descent of 1920 fpm after one second, 3840 fpm after two
seconds, and so on.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> That's the point you idiot- there is no change in direction during a
> vertical roll.

You cannot change the attitude, direction, altitude, etc., of the aircraft
without changing its direction in some plane, and that requires acceleration.

[[email protected]]

Interesting. So if I enter a coordinated turn, the G force increases.
If I enter a descent, the G force decreases.

What happens if I do both of these things simultaneously?



On Jun 13, 2:31 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Got it. What happens to the g force acting on me as a pilot if I start
> > in straight and level, unaccelerated flight, and then I use down
> > elevator and enter a descent?
>
> As you descend, you are accelerated downward. This acceleration is subtracted
> from the constant acceleration imposed by gravity. If your acceleration
> downward is less than 1.0 G, you experience a diminished G force, unchanged in
> direction. If it is equal to 1.0 G (which would be quite a feat), you will
> experience no G force at all. If it is greater than 1.0 G (unlikely indeed),
> you'll feel a negative G force tending to lift you out of your seat. These
> changes persist only for as long as you are accelerating downward; once you
> are descending at a steady rate, you will again experience exactly 1.0 G.



writes:
> What happens to the g force acting on me as a pilot if I start in
> straight and level, unaccelerated flight, and then I initiate a
> coordinated turn?

The net force increases, as it results from both that induced by
gravity
(which is constant) and that induced by your acceleration torwards the
center
of the turn. In a coordinated, level turn, the force vector will be
normal to
the airframe, and so you will have the impression that you are
climbing
initially; when you finish the turn you'll have the impression that
you are
descending briefly. This assumes that you keep your head level with
the
wings.




>

[El Maximo]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Interesting. So if I enter a coordinated turn, the G force increases.
> If I enter a descent, the G force decreases.
>
> What happens if I do both of these things simultaneously?
>

Blue Screen of Death?

[george]

On Jun 14, 7:08 am, "El Maximo" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > Interesting. So if I enter a coordinated turn, the G force increases.
> > If I enter a descent, the G force decreases.
>
> > What happens if I do both of these things simultaneously?
>
> Blue Screen of Death?

ROTFL

[mike regish]

Why?

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

If it is equal to 1.0 G (which would be quite a feat),

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Got it. What happens to the g force acting on me as a pilot if I
>> start in straight and level, unaccelerated flight, and then I use
>> down elevator and enter a descent?
>
> As you descend, you are accelerated downward. This acceleration is
> subtracted from the constant acceleration imposed by gravity. If your
> acceleration downward is less than 1.0 G, you experience a diminished
> G force, unchanged in direction. If it is equal to 1.0 G (which would
> be quite a feat), you will experience no G force at all. If it is
> greater than 1.0 G (unlikely indeed), you'll feel a negative G force
> tending to lift you out of your seat. These changes persist only for
> as long as you are accelerating downward; once you are descending at a
> steady rate, you will again experience exactly 1.0 G.
>
> The latter circumstances are unlikely because accelerating downward at
> 1.0 G would give you a descent of 1920 fpm after one second, 3840 fpm
> after two seconds, and so on.

Nope, you're an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> That's the point you idiot- there is no change in direction during a
>> vertical roll.
>
> You cannot change the attitude, direction, altitude, etc., of the
> aircraft without changing its direction in some plane, and that
> requires acceleration.
>

Nope, yer, wrong, fjukktard. Again


Bertei

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Interesting. So if I enter a coordinated turn, the G force increases.
> If I enter a descent, the G force decreases.

More specifically, the G force induced by gravity is constant. As you
accelerate the aircraft by changing its direction, the total G force and its
direction acting upon you as the pilot also changes. You cannot eliminate
gravity, so there are some things that are impossible: for example, in level
flight, you cannot make a coordinated turn with a 90-degree bank, because that
would require a vertical component of zero in the acceleration forces acting
upon you, and the presence of gravity prevents that.

When you enter a coordinated, level turn, the G force you feel increases, but
its direction does not change. If you enter a descent, the G force diminishes
as you accelerate downward (your downward acceleration being subtracted from
the force of gravity), and then returns to 1.0 once your vertical speed is
constant.

> What happens if I do both of these things simultaneously?

You get some combination of the above; there are several possibilities.

[Mxsmanic]

mike regish writes:

> Why?

It's hard to maintain a downward acceleration of 1 G in any aircraft,
especially a small, non-aerobatic aircraft.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Interesting. So if I enter a coordinated turn, the G force increases.
>> If I enter a descent, the G force decreases.
>
> More specifically, the G force induced by gravity is constant. As you
> accelerate the aircraft by changing its direction,


That what happened to you?

oop, syou don't fly.


BTW Anthony, what's the deal with you going bankrupt? personal choice, was
it?



bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> mike regish writes:
>
>> Why?
>
> It's hard to maintain a downward acceleration of 1 G in any aircraft,
> especially a small, non-aerobatic aircraft.

How would you know, fjukkwit, you don't fly.


Bertie

[mike regish]

Didn't say anything about maintaining it. It is easy to attain zero g in an
airplane. And if you start out with a steep climb, you can sustain zero g
for several seconds easily. I know because I do it all the time. My kids
love watching their soda bottles floating up in front of them.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish writes:
>
>> Why?
>
> It's hard to maintain a downward acceleration of 1 G in any aircraft,
> especially a small, non-aerobatic aircraft.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> writes:
>
> > Got it. What happens to the g force acting on me as a pilot if I start
> > in straight and level, unaccelerated flight, and then I use down
> > elevator and enter a descent?
>
> As you descend, you are accelerated downward.

No you are not - not relative to "self" (not the earth). Yer a moron.

Relative to yourself - in the plane - you can do a 1G roll (not a very
tidy one, and not one you'll see in the books). The 'book' describes
(as has been written here already), typically a descent to build
airspeed, then a climb and bank, then into it and over and recover
level.

To put it another way, if you closed your eyes, you wouldn't know you've
done a roll (given you go for the 'non-standard' 1G roll), other than
the initial sensation of beginning the turn, and then the sensation of
the turn stopping.

--
Duncan

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Actually, with him, it's more like trying to breathe under water. What an
idiot.

[[email protected]]

'Some combination', 'several possibilities.' I'm confused by this -
can you be more precise? What are the possibilities?


> writes:
> > Interesting. So if I enter a coordinated turn, the G force increases.
> > If I enter a descent, the G force decreases.
> >
> >
> >
> > What happens if I do both of these things simultaneously?

>On Jun 14, 1:49 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> You get some combination of the above; there are several possibilities.

[Jon]

On Jun 14, 8:05 am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Actually, with him, it's more like trying to breathe under water. What an
> idiot.

A child starved for attention.

Notice the disproportionate write/read ratio and the recurring
reference to the apparent 'club' which "won't let me in!"

It wants to run with the adult dogs, yet it continues to bark like
puppy..

[[email protected]]

What you said about acceleration is true enough, but if you were on
speaking terms with Newton or vector analysis of some other analytical
tools you might understand some of what's been said here.


not continue to offer

On Jun 13, 2:32 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:
> > That's the point you idiot- there is no change in direction during a
> > vertical roll.
>
> You cannot change the attitude, direction, altitude, etc., of the aircraft
> without changing its direction in some plane, and that requires acceleration.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dave Doe wrote:

> To put it another way, if you closed your eyes, you wouldn't know you've
> done a roll (given you go for the 'non-standard' 1G roll), other than
> the initial sensation of beginning the turn, and then the sensation of
> the turn stopping.
>

Not sure exactly where you are with this, but as what you are saying
pertains to barrel rolls begun from level flight or from a position with
the nose below the horizon, don't forget that the entire gist of the
misunderstanding that has been running rampant on this thread about
barrel rolls and doing them at 1 positive g can be centered and
completely focused on the fact that it's the ENTRY and the EXIT of the
roll, and how these two factors interplay into the roll itself that is
causing all the confusion.
The one factor that can't be taken out of the barrel roll scenario is
that no matter how you cut it, if PITCH is a factor in a barrel roll,
there will be an indication on a g meter above 1 g as that pitch change
is being made. In a normal barrel roll you have pitch change as the nose
transverses the roll in it's helical path.
If a barrel roll requires the nose of the aircraft to be above the
horizon during the entry and then again brought back to the horizon
during the recovery (as it does) you will absolutely be showing more
than 1 positive g on the g meter during the roll, and if it's a
retaining double needle g meter, after the roll when you bring the
airplane home........period! This is a fact of life. As soon as the
aircraft's nose shows a positive nose rate in PITCH as it's raised
during the roll entry and then again during the recovery as it's raised
again to level flight, that g meter will leave 1 and show more than 1
positive g.

Now here is the part that is causing all the confusion. ONCE the nose
has been raised above the horizon (and that over 1 g has been registered
on the g meter) as you feed in aileron you can PLAY WITH THE BACK
PRESSURE being applied and EASE OFF the positive g to a LOWER LEVEL if
desired over the top of the roll, but that level can't be unloaded below
1 g or the arc of the roll will be destroyed. It's the COMBINATION of
roll and pitch that is producing the roll arc and those TWO pressures
MUST be maintained to produce the roll.
So the bottom line is simply that to do a barrel roll where the nose
must be both above and below the horizon line starting from level flight
you need over 1 g during the entry and exit, but you can reduce the g to
1 through the top of the roll if desired.

Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> 'Some combination', 'several possibilities.' I'm confused by this -
> can you be more precise? What are the possibilities?

You can move and accelerate in any combination of three dimensions, with any
combination of acceleration rates, almost. You have to calculate the
direction and magnitude of the net acceleration vector to determine exactly
how much force is acting upon the pilot, and in which direction.

Some of it is (or should be) intuitive. For example, if you turn the aircraft
to the right, you'll be accelerated to the right.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> What you said about acceleration is true enough, but if you were on
> speaking terms with Newton or vector analysis of some other analytical
> tools you might understand some of what's been said here.

Most of what has been said here has been said by people who manifestly lack
even the most basic notions of physics. I don't understand how people can
believe that changes in direction are possible without accelerations.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Most of what has been said here has been said by people who manifestly
> lack
> even the most basic notions of physics.

Most of what has been said here has been said by YOU, so this statement is
probably true.

> I don't understand how people can believe that changes in direction are
> possible without accelerations.

There are lots of things you don't understand. Unfortunately, you won't
accept it.

[[email protected]]

Hang on, let's keep things simple:

1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs.
2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs.

If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a
descending turn without any change in Gs. Just as long as I
continously feed in enough down elevator to offset the increasing Gs
from the turn, the force on the airframe and me, the pilot, will stay
at 1 G.

Of course, all combinations are indeed possible. But this interesting
special case of the situation exists, doesn't it, in which there is no
change in the force felt by the pilot?


On Jun 14, 3:36 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > 'Some combination', 'several possibilities.' I'm confused by this -
> > can you be more precise? What are the possibilities?
>
> You can move and accelerate in any combination of three dimensions, with any
> combination of acceleration rates, almost. You have to calculate the
> direction and magnitude of the net acceleration vector to determine exactly
> how much force is acting upon the pilot, and in which direction.
>
> Some of it is (or should be) intuitive. For example, if you turn the aircraft
> to the right, you'll be accelerated to the right.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> What you said about acceleration is true enough, but if you were on
>> speaking terms with Newton or vector analysis of some other
>> analytical tools you might understand some of what's been said here.
>
> Most of what has been said here has been said by people who manifestly
> lack even the most basic notions of physics.

Like you, for instance.

> I don't understand

I know.


Bertie

[george]

On Jun 14, 9:39 pm, "mike regish" > wrote:
> Didn't say anything about maintaining it. It is easy to attain zero g in an
> airplane. And if you start out with a steep climb, you can sustain zero g
> for several seconds easily. I know because I do it all the time. My kids
> love watching their soda bottles floating up in front of them.

I used to move an item from one side of the cockpit to the other and
back and forward just to impress the pax..
Then on the ground I'd drop the item just to show pax the speed we
were descending at at the time ...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> 'Some combination', 'several possibilities.' I'm confused by this -
>> can you be more precise? What are the possibilities?
>
> You can move and accelerate in any combination of three dimensions,

Wrong again, fjukktard.


Don';t you ever get tired of being wrong?

I'm guessing the answer is "yes", since you run away every time I cal you
on it.


Guess that's why you went bankrupt. Running away.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> Hang on, let's keep things simple:
>
> 1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs.
> 2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs.
>
> If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a
> descending turn without any change in Gs. Just as long as I
> continously feed in enough down elevator to offset the increasing Gs
> from the turn, the force on the airframe and me, the pilot, will stay
> at 1 G.
>
> Of course, all combinations are indeed possible. But this interesting
> special case of the situation exists, doesn't it, in which there is no
> change in the force felt by the pilot?
>
>
> On Jun 14, 3:36 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>> 'Some combination', 'several possibilities.' I'm confused by this -
>>> can you be more precise? What are the possibilities?
>> You can move and accelerate in any combination of three dimensions, with any
>> combination of acceleration rates, almost. You have to calculate the
>> direction and magnitude of the net acceleration vector to determine exactly
>> how much force is acting upon the pilot, and in which direction.
>>
>> Some of it is (or should be) intuitive. For example, if you turn the aircraft
>> to the right, you'll be accelerated to the right.
>
>
There is a special case where you can unload the airplane in roll to
increase the roll rate. It's done in fighters all the time in ACM. You
can experience it in your everyday light aerobatic airplane by doing an
aileron roll from a nose high roll set position, then as the airplane
goes past the first knife edge position, go forward on the pole to
unload the wings but not enough to go negative. Keeping the aileron in
hard while you do this increases the roll rate and as a side effect
flattens the roll in pitch at the same time making it prettier :-)

Dudley Henriques

[Jim Stewart]

wrote:
> Hang on, let's keep things simple:
>
> 1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs.
> 2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs.
>
> If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a
> descending turn without any change in Gs. Just as long as I
> continously feed in enough down elevator to offset the increasing Gs
> from the turn, the force on the airframe and me, the pilot, will stay
> at 1 G.

Isn't there some sinister name for this
when it happens to a non-IFR pilot in a cloud?

[[email protected]]

Jim, you don't have to do the physics for a 1 g roll. click on

stanford.edu/~sigman/one_g_roll.html for a really neat analysis.

Page down toward the end of sigman's article to see the actual flight
paths that it takes. It's a neat read.

Oh, for the nonbelievers in Newton and vector analysis and such (Mx
whatever comes to mind) don't bother.

[[email protected]]

OPPS, It's www.stanford.edu/~siegman/one_g_roll.html


On Jun 14, 7:19 pm, wrote:
> Jim, you don't have to do the physics for a 1 g roll. click on
>
> stanford.edu/~sigman/one_g_roll.html for a really neat analysis.
>
> Page down toward the end of sigman's article to see the actual flight
> paths that it takes. It's a neat read.
>
> Oh, for the nonbelievers in Newton and vector analysis and such (Mx
> whatever comes to mind) don't bother.

[george]

On Jun 15, 10:29 am, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Hang on, let's keep things simple:
>
> > 1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs.
> > 2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs.
>
> > If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a
> > descending turn without any change in Gs. Just as long as I
> > continously feed in enough down elevator to offset the increasing Gs
> > from the turn, the force on the airframe and me, the pilot, will stay
> > at 1 G.
>
> Isn't there some sinister name for this
> when it happens to a non-IFR pilot in a cloud?

Graveyard spiral dive

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
>> Jim, you don't have to do the physics for a 1 g roll. click on
>>
>> stanford.edu/~sigman/one_g_roll.html for a really neat analysis.
>>
>> Page down toward the end of sigman's article to see the actual flight
>> paths that it takes. It's a neat read.
>>
>> Oh, for the nonbelievers in Newton and vector analysis and such (Mx
>> whatever comes to mind) don't bother.

> OPPS, It's www.stanford.edu/~siegman/one_g_roll.html

Fascinating - thanks for finding that! Amusing to note that a physicist of
that caliber was motivated to explore the situation due to an older thread
on the same subject on the same Usenet newsgroup! I considered setting up
the same situation using Mathcad 2000 (it can generate animations, so I
think I could have set up appropriate parametric equations and created a 3D
movie). But I just don't have the time at the moment to do that.

At least I feel better that my physical intuition didn't fail me.

The nit pickers may (reasonably) argue that the trajectories don't yield
the "barrel roll" spiral they might insist on, but such is life. I should
have titled this thread "Myth: 1 G rolls are impossible," and dispensed
with the word "barrel."

[[email protected]]

Wasn't the demonstration of the ignorance of physics by some of the
posters fun?

I don't think a GA airplane has the control authority to do one of
these 'rolls' but maybe.

But you could start the thing with a coordinated turn and forward
yoke, and maybe get to 45 degrees bank and a lot of downward pitch
maintaining 1 G before getting back to straight and level,

His first model with 10 seconds total time means 320 fps downward
velocity, about 200 kts down at its end. He pointed out the total
altitude loss from start to finish was 1600 feet or so, but then
comes pull out from lots of vertical speed. Moral: start high and
pull out smoothly or turn the airplane into a kit.






On Jun 14, 8:47 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
> >> Jim, you don't have to do the physics for a 1 g roll. click on
>
> >> stanford.edu/~sigman/one_g_roll.html for a really neat analysis.
>
> >> Page down toward the end of sigman's article to see the actual flight
> >> paths that it takes. It's a neat read.
>
> >> Oh, for the nonbelievers in Newton and vector analysis and such (Mx
> >> whatever comes to mind) don't bother.
> > OPPS, It'swww.stanford.edu/~siegman/one_g_roll.html
>
> Fascinating - thanks for finding that! Amusing to note that a physicist of
> that caliber was motivated to explore the situation due to an older thread
> on the same subject on the same Usenet newsgroup! I considered setting up
> the same situation using Mathcad 2000 (it can generate animations, so I
> think I could have set up appropriate parametric equations and created a 3D
> movie). But I just don't have the time at the moment to do that.
>
> At least I feel better that my physical intuition didn't fail me.
>
> The nit pickers may (reasonably) argue that the trajectories don't yield
> the "barrel roll" spiral they might insist on, but such is life. I should
> have titled this thread "Myth: 1 G rolls are impossible," and dispensed
> with the word "barrel."

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> There is a special case where you can unload the airplane in roll to
> increase the roll rate. It's done in fighters all the time in ACM. You
> can experience it in your everyday light aerobatic airplane by doing an
> aileron roll from a nose high roll set position, then as the airplane
> goes past the first knife edge position, go forward on the pole to
> unload the wings but not enough to go negative. Keeping the aileron in
> hard while you do this increases the roll rate and as a side effect
> flattens the roll in pitch at the same time making it prettier :-)

Why does this work?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Jim, you don't have to do the physics for a 1 g roll. click on
>
> stanford.edu/~sigman/one_g_roll.html for a really neat analysis.
>
> Page down toward the end of sigman's article to see the actual flight
> paths that it takes. It's a neat read.
>
> Oh, for the nonbelievers in Newton and vector analysis and such (Mx
> whatever comes to mind) don't bother.
>

A very nice analysis and it confirms that you can't execute a barrel
roll from straight and level flight while maintaining 1G. You either
lose a lot of altitude and end up in a steep dive or you have to pull up
(and thus exceed 1 G) if you want to end up at the starting altitude.
Case closed. :-)

Matt

[Ash Wyllie]

tbaker27705 opined

>Jim, you don't have to do the physics for a 1 g roll. click on

>stanford.edu/~sigman/one_g_roll.html for a really neat analysis.

>Page down toward the end of sigman's article to see the actual flight
>paths that it takes. It's a neat read.

>Oh, for the nonbelievers in Newton and vector analysis and such (Mx
>whatever comes to mind) don't bother.

It's http://www.stanford.edu/~siegman/one_g_roll.html


-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

[RomeoMike]

I don't know how anyone can make it more clear than that. If you don't
believe this, you have never done barrel rolls and should do so, with
appropriate plane and instructor, before saying any more.

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
> Not sure exactly where you are with this, but as what you are saying
> pertains to barrel rolls begun from level flight or from a position with
> the nose below the horizon, don't forget that the entire gist of the
> misunderstanding that has been running rampant on this thread about
> barrel rolls and doing them at 1 positive g can be centered and
> completely focused on the fact that it's the ENTRY and the EXIT of the
> roll, and how these two factors interplay into the roll itself that is
> causing all the confusion.
> The one factor that can't be taken out of the barrel roll scenario is
> that no matter how you cut it, if PITCH is a factor in a barrel roll,
> there will be an indication on a g meter above 1 g as that pitch change
> is being made. In a normal barrel roll you have pitch change as the nose
> transverses the roll in it's helical path.
> If a barrel roll requires the nose of the aircraft to be above the
> horizon during the entry and then again brought back to the horizon
> during the recovery (as it does) you will absolutely be showing more
> than 1 positive g on the g meter during the roll, and if it's a
> retaining double needle g meter, after the roll when you bring the
> airplane home........period! This is a fact of life. As soon as the
> aircraft's nose shows a positive nose rate in PITCH as it's raised
> during the roll entry and then again during the recovery as it's raised
> again to level flight, that g meter will leave 1 and show more than 1
> positive g.
>
> Now here is the part that is causing all the confusion. ONCE the nose
> has been raised above the horizon (and that over 1 g has been registered
> on the g meter) as you feed in aileron you can PLAY WITH THE BACK
> PRESSURE being applied and EASE OFF the positive g to a LOWER LEVEL if
> desired over the top of the roll, but that level can't be unloaded below
> 1 g or the arc of the roll will be destroyed. It's the COMBINATION of
> roll and pitch that is producing the roll arc and those TWO pressures
> MUST be maintained to produce the roll.
> So the bottom line is simply that to do a barrel roll where the nose
> must be both above and below the horizon line starting from level flight
> you need over 1 g during the entry and exit, but you can reduce the g to
> 1 through the top of the roll if desired.
>
> Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

You're right about a barrel roll, of course, I like that you can
rotate the wings through 360 degrees and maintain 1 G.

You could also, I think, start the 'roll' with an upward velocity
component of 320 feet a second and end it level, but hardly at the
same altitude (you'd be 1600 feet higher).

An even more interesting question would be, is there an airplane that
can fly this flight path? I think it would take massive control
surfaces to be able to pull a G with the yoke.


On Jun 14, 9:55 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Jim, you don't have to do the physics for a 1 g roll. click on
>
> > stanford.edu/~sigman/one_g_roll.html for a really neat analysis.
>
> > Page down toward the end of sigman's article to see the actual flight
> > paths that it takes. It's a neat read.
>
> > Oh, for the nonbelievers in Newton and vector analysis and such (Mx
> > whatever comes to mind) don't bother.
>
> A very nice analysis and it confirms that you can't execute a barrel
> roll from straight and level flight while maintaining 1G. You either
> lose a lot of altitude and end up in a steep dive or you have to pull up
> (and thus exceed 1 G) if you want to end up at the starting altitude.
> Case closed. :-)
>
> Matt

[muff528]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jim, you don't have to do the physics for a 1 g roll. click on
>
> stanford.edu/~sigman/one_g_roll.html for a really neat analysis.
>
> Page down toward the end of sigman's article to see the actual flight
> paths that it takes. It's a neat read.
>
> Oh, for the nonbelievers in Newton and vector analysis and such (Mx
> whatever comes to mind) don't bother.
>

Hmmmm....some of the trajectories for varying "initial roll angles" look
kinda like my drawing
somewhere above in this thread. Especially the ones to the left side of the
graph with higher
initial angles. Only I was trying to imagine a scenario where you end up
straight and level rather
than finishing in a high-speed dive as Siegman's model shows. I was thinking
more along the lines
of pulling up the nose throughout the maneuver to induce the 1g, resulting
in a corkscrew dive which
you would gradually flatten until the end of the roll. By pulling up the
nose to create the g-force you
would not have to accelerate downward to "outrun" the acceleration of
gravity. Of course Siegman's
model more closely approximates a barrel roll where I think I ended up with
a gradually opening
spiraling dive. Mine was just a thought experiment....no math involved. :-)

[[email protected]]

I think by chosing an initial climb rate of 320 fps (!!) you can do
this 1 G roll and end up level but 1600 feet higher, or at a lower
rate , maybe 160 fps, and end up at the same altitiude as you started,
but going down 160 fps. (superposiiton works!)

I sure can not think of a 1 g track that would get you straight and
level from a dive, unless the dive took you through the center of the
earth.


Hey, there's the answer. You have to go really fast so that your fall
rate is compensated by the earth being a sphere. That would be pretty
fast!

This part of the thread belongs over in the physics newsgroup.


On Jun 14, 10:34 pm, "muff528" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > Jim, you don't have to do the physics for a 1 g roll. click on
>
> > stanford.edu/~sigman/one_g_roll.html for a really neat analysis.
>
> > Page down toward the end of sigman's article to see the actual flight
> > paths that it takes. It's a neat read.
>
> > Oh, for the nonbelievers in Newton and vector analysis and such (Mx
> > whatever comes to mind) don't bother.
>
> Hmmmm....some of the trajectories for varying "initial roll angles" look
> kinda like my drawing
> somewhere above in this thread. Especially the ones to the left side of the
> graph with higher
> initial angles. Only I was trying to imagine a scenario where you end up
> straight and level rather
> than finishing in a high-speed dive as Siegman's model shows. I was thinking
> more along the lines
> of pulling up the nose throughout the maneuver to induce the 1g, resulting
> in a corkscrew dive which
> you would gradually flatten until the end of the roll. By pulling up the
> nose to create the g-force you
> would not have to accelerate downward to "outrun" the acceleration of
> gravity. Of course Siegman's
> model more closely approximates a barrel roll where I think I ended up with
> a gradually opening
> spiraling dive. Mine was just a thought experiment....no math involved. :-)

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> You're right about a barrel roll, of course, I like that you can
> rotate the wings through 360 degrees and maintain 1 G.
>
> You could also, I think, start the 'roll' with an upward velocity
> component of 320 feet a second and end it level, but hardly at the
> same altitude (you'd be 1600 feet higher).
>
> An even more interesting question would be, is there an airplane that
> can fly this flight path? I think it would take massive control
> surfaces to be able to pull a G with the yoke.

I'm not an aerobatic pilot, but pulling 1G with the elevator isn't hard
on any airplane I've flown.

Matt

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> There is a special case where you can unload the airplane in roll to
>> increase the roll rate. It's done in fighters all the time in ACM. You
>> can experience it in your everyday light aerobatic airplane by doing
>> an aileron roll from a nose high roll set position, then as the
>> airplane goes past the first knife edge position, go forward on the
>> pole to unload the wings but not enough to go negative. Keeping the
>> aileron in hard while you do this increases the roll rate and as a
>> side effect flattens the roll in pitch at the same time making it
>> prettier :-)
>
> Why does this work?
>
> Matt

Several factors effect roll rate, roll acceleration and roll inertia.
Basically why this works is that unloading the airplane while rolling
(aileron roll basically, not a slow roll) minimizes much of the
effectiveness issues experienced by the ailerons especially at low
airspeeds and high load factors when the wings are generating a fair
amount of lift. Anytime you want to maximize the roll rate, unloading
will achieve this. The exact point where the rate is maximized by
unloading will vary from aircraft to aircraft but basically the rule
still applies.
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> wrote:
>> You're right about a barrel roll, of course, I like that you can
>> rotate the wings through 360 degrees and maintain 1 G.
>>
>> You could also, I think, start the 'roll' with an upward velocity
>> component of 320 feet a second and end it level, but hardly at the
>> same altitude (you'd be 1600 feet higher).
>>
>> An even more interesting question would be, is there an airplane that
>> can fly this flight path? I think it would take massive control
>> surfaces to be able to pull a G with the yoke.
>
> I'm not an aerobatic pilot, but pulling 1G with the elevator isn't hard
> on any airplane I've flown.
>
> Matt

Actually Matt, all you need to do with most g meters is to "tweak" the
stick with an instant of positive pitch pressure and release it. You
will register over 1 g just doing that :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Hang on, let's keep things simple:
>
> 1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs.
> 2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs.
>
> If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a
> descending turn without any change in Gs.

Yes. Note, however, that you must _accelerate_ downward, and not merely drift
downward at a constant rate.

> Just as long as I
> continously feed in enough down elevator to offset the increasing Gs
> from the turn, the force on the airframe and me, the pilot, will stay
> at 1 G.

The additional G from the acceleration towards the center of the turn will be
constant, but the offsetting G from the descent will be constant only if you
continuously accelerate downward.

> Of course, all combinations are indeed possible. But this interesting
> special case of the situation exists, doesn't it, in which there is no
> change in the force felt by the pilot?

Yes. It sounds a lot like a spin.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Graveyard spiral dive

Which probably isn't a coincidence, since pilots likely get into these
precisely because they maintain "normal" G forces.

[[email protected]]

> > 1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs.
> > 2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs.
>
> > If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a
> > descending turn without any change in Gs.
>
> Yes. Note, however, that you must _accelerate_ downward, and not merely drift
> downward at a constant rate.

Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it
is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is travelling
without accelerating the plane. Your own analysis, based on my
questions, clearly shows that it is possible to change the direction
the plane is going in without deviating from the 1G being exerted.
Note that the I am not denying that the aircraft is accelerating in
this situation. But it is doing so without a change in force being
felt. So where your argument breaks down is in the assumption that if
changing the direction requires acceleration, then acceleration will
require a change in G force.

I am not saying that this is, in of itself, proof of the possibility
of the 1G barrel roll. It does, however, clearly indicate a flaw in
your argument. I find it odd that you find it so hard to believe that
people can believe that changes in direction are possible without
accelerations being felt, given that by your own admission, these
people are actually correct.

>
> > Of course, all combinations are indeed possible. But this interesting
> > special case of the situation exists, doesn't it, in which there is no
> > change in the force felt by the pilot?
>
> Yes. It sounds a lot like a spin.

What? It sounds very little like a spin - try entering a spin with no
change in G force!

[muff528]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > 1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs.
>> > 2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs.
>>
>> > If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a
>> > descending turn without any change in Gs.
>>
>> Yes. Note, however, that you must _accelerate_ downward, and not merely
>> drift
>> downward at a constant rate.
>
> Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it
> is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is travelling
> without accelerating the plane. Your own analysis, based on my
> questions, clearly shows that it is possible to change the direction
> the plane is going in without deviating from the 1G being exerted.
> Note that the I am not denying that the aircraft is accelerating in
> this situation. But it is doing so without a change in force being
> felt. So where your argument breaks down is in the assumption that if
> changing the direction requires acceleration, then acceleration will
> require a change in G force.
>
> I am not saying that this is, in of itself, proof of the possibility
> of the 1G barrel roll. It does, however, clearly indicate a flaw in
> your argument. I find it odd that you find it so hard to believe that
> people can believe that changes in direction are possible without
> accelerations being felt, given that by your own admission, these
> people are actually correct.
>
>>
>> > Of course, all combinations are indeed possible. But this interesting
>> > special case of the situation exists, doesn't it, in which there is no
>> > change in the force felt by the pilot?
>>
>> Yes. It sounds a lot like a spin.
>
> What? It sounds very little like a spin - try entering a spin with no
> change in G force!
>

A change in direction does not *require* acceleration..........a change in
direction *is* acceleration.
You "feel" the effects of acceleration, whether it is caused by gravity, a
change in velocity, or
change in direction. All of these factors come into play when doing any
maneuver giving a net
result that you interpret as gee's, whether you are in freefall or in a high
gee turn.

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>> There is a special case where you can unload the airplane in roll to
>>> increase the roll rate. It's done in fighters all the time in ACM.
>>> You can experience it in your everyday light aerobatic airplane by
>>> doing an aileron roll from a nose high roll set position, then as the
>>> airplane goes past the first knife edge position, go forward on the
>>> pole to unload the wings but not enough to go negative. Keeping the
>>> aileron in hard while you do this increases the roll rate and as a
>>> side effect flattens the roll in pitch at the same time making it
>>> prettier :-)
>>
>> Why does this work?
>>
>> Matt
>
> Several factors effect roll rate, roll acceleration and roll inertia.
> Basically why this works is that unloading the airplane while rolling
> (aileron roll basically, not a slow roll) minimizes much of the
> effectiveness issues experienced by the ailerons especially at low
> airspeeds and high load factors when the wings are generating a fair
> amount of lift. Anytime you want to maximize the roll rate, unloading
> will achieve this. The exact point where the rate is maximized by
> unloading will vary from aircraft to aircraft but basically the rule
> still applies.
> Dudley Henriques

Thanks!

[Matt Whiting]

muff528 wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>>> 1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs.
>>>> 2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs.
>>>> If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a
>>>> descending turn without any change in Gs.
>>> Yes. Note, however, that you must _accelerate_ downward, and not merely
>>> drift
>>> downward at a constant rate.
>> Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it
>> is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is travelling
>> without accelerating the plane. Your own analysis, based on my
>> questions, clearly shows that it is possible to change the direction
>> the plane is going in without deviating from the 1G being exerted.
>> Note that the I am not denying that the aircraft is accelerating in
>> this situation. But it is doing so without a change in force being
>> felt. So where your argument breaks down is in the assumption that if
>> changing the direction requires acceleration, then acceleration will
>> require a change in G force.
>>
>> I am not saying that this is, in of itself, proof of the possibility
>> of the 1G barrel roll. It does, however, clearly indicate a flaw in
>> your argument. I find it odd that you find it so hard to believe that
>> people can believe that changes in direction are possible without
>> accelerations being felt, given that by your own admission, these
>> people are actually correct.
>>
>>>> Of course, all combinations are indeed possible. But this interesting
>>>> special case of the situation exists, doesn't it, in which there is no
>>>> change in the force felt by the pilot?
>>> Yes. It sounds a lot like a spin.
>> What? It sounds very little like a spin - try entering a spin with no
>> change in G force!
>>
>
> A change in direction does not *require* acceleration..........a change in
> direction *is* acceleration.
> You "feel" the effects of acceleration, whether it is caused by gravity, a
> change in velocity, or
> change in direction. All of these factors come into play when doing any
> maneuver giving a net
> result that you interpret as gee's, whether you are in freefall or in a high
> gee turn.
>
>

What's a gee? Is that like a gee whiz? :-)

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> You're right about a barrel roll, of course, I like that you can
>>> rotate the wings through 360 degrees and maintain 1 G.
>>>
>>> You could also, I think, start the 'roll' with an upward velocity
>>> component of 320 feet a second and end it level, but hardly at the
>>> same altitude (you'd be 1600 feet higher).
>>>
>>> An even more interesting question would be, is there an airplane that
>>> can fly this flight path? I think it would take massive control
>>> surfaces to be able to pull a G with the yoke.
>>
>> I'm not an aerobatic pilot, but pulling 1G with the elevator isn't
>> hard on any airplane I've flown.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Actually Matt, all you need to do with most g meters is to "tweak" the
> stick with an instant of positive pitch pressure and release it. You
> will register over 1 g just doing that :-))
> Dudley Henriques

Unfortunately, I've never had the pleasure of flying a g meter equipped
airplane!

Matt

[muff528]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> muff528 wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>>> 1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs.
>>>>> 2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs.
>>>>> If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a
>>>>> descending turn without any change in Gs.
>>>> Yes. Note, however, that you must _accelerate_ downward, and not
>>>> merely drift
>>>> downward at a constant rate.
>>> Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it
>>> is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is travelling
>>> without accelerating the plane. Your own analysis, based on my
>>> questions, clearly shows that it is possible to change the direction
>>> the plane is going in without deviating from the 1G being exerted.
>>> Note that the I am not denying that the aircraft is accelerating in
>>> this situation. But it is doing so without a change in force being
>>> felt. So where your argument breaks down is in the assumption that if
>>> changing the direction requires acceleration, then acceleration will
>>> require a change in G force.
>>>
>>> I am not saying that this is, in of itself, proof of the possibility
>>> of the 1G barrel roll. It does, however, clearly indicate a flaw in
>>> your argument. I find it odd that you find it so hard to believe that
>>> people can believe that changes in direction are possible without
>>> accelerations being felt, given that by your own admission, these
>>> people are actually correct.
>>>
>>>>> Of course, all combinations are indeed possible. But this interesting
>>>>> special case of the situation exists, doesn't it, in which there is no
>>>>> change in the force felt by the pilot?
>>>> Yes. It sounds a lot like a spin.
>>> What? It sounds very little like a spin - try entering a spin with no
>>> change in G force!
>>>
>>
>> A change in direction does not *require* acceleration..........a change
>> in direction *is* acceleration.
>> You "feel" the effects of acceleration, whether it is caused by gravity,
>> a change in velocity, or
>> change in direction. All of these factors come into play when doing any
>> maneuver giving a net
>> result that you interpret as gee's, whether you are in freefall or in a
>> high gee turn.
>
> What's a gee? Is that like a gee whiz? :-)

No... it's like geez whiz......you spread it on bread to get a geez sammich.
:)

[[email protected]]

I can't believe I took the time to do this.

If you started at abaout 18000 miles an hour (you had better be pretty
high!) when you flew this path you'd end up level with the horizon.

I think this is out of the range of most general avaition airplanes.
The neat thing is, though, if you wanted to have a real aerobatic
flight experience on a simulator, this is the one to try. Just create
a craft with the ability to go that high, that fast, with thrusters
than could do this thing. Why, you could pour coffee into a cup and
claim to have the same effects in the simulation as a real pilot would
have in the craft.

[El Maximo]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I can't believe I took the time to do this.
>
> If you started at abaout 18000 miles an hour (you had better be pretty
> high!) when you flew this path you'd end up level with the horizon.
>

It's called orbital velocity

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm


> I think this is out of the range of most general avaition airplanes.
> The neat thing is, though, if you wanted to have a real aerobatic
> flight experience on a simulator, this is the one to try. Just create
> a craft with the ability to go that high, that fast, with thrusters
> than could do this thing. Why, you could pour coffee into a cup and
> claim to have the same effects in the simulation as a real pilot would
> have in the craft.
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Of course it is, and in this trivial case I just calculated how far
one must travel in the 10 seconds of the track to have the earth curve
away 1600 feet.

Increase the roll rate -- jets can roll really quickly -- and the
speed starts dropping to 3 or 4 mach.

On Jun 15, 9:12 am, "El Maximo" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> >I can't believe I took the time to do this.
>
> > If you started at abaout 18000 miles an hour (you had better be pretty
> > high!) when you flew this path you'd end up level with the horizon.
>
> It's called orbital velocity
>
> http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm
>
>
>
> > I think this is out of the range of most general avaition airplanes.
> > The neat thing is, though, if you wanted to have a real aerobatic
> > flight experience on a simulator, this is the one to try. Just create
> > a craft with the ability to go that high, that fast, with thrusters
> > than could do this thing. Why, you could pour coffee into a cup and
> > claim to have the same effects in the simulation as a real pilot would
> > have in the craft.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[[email protected]]

Here's a very realizable one g roll for any airplane -- it just
depends on one's frame of reference. I'll choose the sun, and get a
slow 1 G barrel roll with an 8000 mile diameter in 24 hours. Depending
on the direction the airplane is tied down, it could be backwards.

On Jun 15, 9:20 am, wrote:
> Of course it is, and in this trivial case I just calculated how far
> one must travel in the 10 seconds of the track to have the earth curve
> away 1600 feet.
>
> Increase the roll rate -- jets can roll really quickly -- and the
> speed starts dropping to 3 or 4 mach.
>
> On Jun 15, 9:12 am, "El Maximo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > >I can't believe I took the time to do this.
>
> > > If you started at abaout 18000 miles an hour (you had better be pretty
> > > high!) when you flew this path you'd end up level with the horizon.
>
> > It's called orbital velocity
>
> >http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm
>
> > > I think this is out of the range of most general avaition airplanes.
> > > The neat thing is, though, if you wanted to have a real aerobatic
> > > flight experience on a simulator, this is the one to try. Just create
> > > a craft with the ability to go that high, that fast, with thrusters
> > > than could do this thing. Why, you could pour coffee into a cup and
> > > claim to have the same effects in the simulation as a real pilot would
> > > have in the craft.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[El Maximo]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> Here's a very realizable one g roll for any airplane -- it just
> depends on one's frame of reference. I'll choose the sun, and get a
> slow 1 G barrel roll with an 8000 mile diameter in 24 hours. Depending
> on the direction the airplane is tied down, it could be backwards.

MX could even 'fly' that one <g>

[Mark Hansen]

On 06/14/07 15:29, Jim Stewart wrote:
> wrote:
>> Hang on, let's keep things simple:
>>
>> 1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs.
>> 2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs.
>>
>> If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a
>> descending turn without any change in Gs. Just as long as I
>> continously feed in enough down elevator to offset the increasing Gs
>> from the turn, the force on the airframe and me, the pilot, will stay
>> at 1 G.
>
> Isn't there some sinister name for this
> when it happens to a non-IFR pilot in a cloud?
>

Actually, the same name applies whether or not the pilot holds an
Instrument Rating.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[[email protected]]

And he could report the very same sensations actual pilots feel.

As a matter of fact, I flew that barrel roll once in the past 24
hours, at 1 g actual.

On Jun 15, 10:06 am, "El Maximo" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...
>
> > Here's a very realizable one g roll for any airplane -- it just
> > depends on one's frame of reference. I'll choose the sun, and get a
> > slow 1 G barrel roll with an 8000 mile diameter in 24 hours. Depending
> > on the direction the airplane is tied down, it could be backwards.
>
> MX could even 'fly' that one <g>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> Graveyard spiral dive
>
> Which probably isn't a coincidence, since pilots likely get into these
> precisely because they maintain "normal" G forces.
>

Nope, wrong again, fjukktard.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Hang on, let's keep things simple:
>>
>> 1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs.
>> 2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs.
>>
>> If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a
>> descending turn without any change in Gs.
>
> Yes. Note, however, that you must _accelerate_ downward, and not
> merely drift downward at a constant rate.
>
>> Just as long as I
>> continously feed in enough down elevator to offset the increasing Gs
>> from the turn, the force on the airframe and me, the pilot, will stay
>> at 1 G.
>
> The additional G from the acceleration towards the center of the turn
> will be constant, but the offsetting G from the descent will be
> constant only if you continuously accelerate downward.
>
>> Of course, all combinations are indeed possible. But this interesting
>> special case of the situation exists, doesn't it, in which there is
>> no change in the force felt by the pilot?
>
> Yes. It sounds a lot like a spin.

No, it doesn;t., fjukktard.



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it
> is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is travelling
> without accelerating the plane.

Yes.

> Your own analysis, based on my questions, clearly shows that it
> is possible to change the direction the plane is going in without
> deviating from the 1G being exerted.

Accelerations sometimes reinforce each other, and sometimes cancel each other.
Even when they cancel each other, they do not disappear.

[Mxsmanic]

El Maximo writes:

> It's called orbital velocity
>
> http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm

Any object following a ballistic trajectory (disregarding aerodynamic effects)
is in orbit.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Any object following a ballistic trajectory (disregarding aerodynamic
> effects)
> is in orbit.

And your point is?

[george]

On Jun 15, 4:42 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > Graveyard spiral dive
>
> Which probably isn't a coincidence, since pilots likely get into these
> precisely because they maintain "normal" G forces.

Berties right!
You are every thing he says..
FYI a noninstument rated pilot entering IFR conditions has about 90
seconds of life remaining.
The resulting high speed spiral dive is a result losing all visual
references and becoming disorientated in cloud...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it
>> is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is
>> travelling without accelerating the plane.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Your own analysis, based on my questions, clearly shows that it
>> is possible to change the direction the plane is going in without
>> deviating from the 1G being exerted.
>
> Accelerations sometimes reinforce each other, and sometimes cancel
> each other. Even when they cancel each other, they do not disappear.
>


Wrong again bankruptcy boi.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> It's called orbital velocity
>>
>> http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm
>
> Any object following a ballistic trajectory (disregarding aerodynamic
> effects) is in orbit.
>

nope.


Wrong again

Not even curious as to how I know you're wrong?





Bertei

[mike regish]

Thought it was 158 seconds before he loses orientation and then whatever it
takes to crash into the hard edge of the sky.

mike

"george" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Berties right!
> You are every thing he says..
> FYI a noninstument rated pilot entering IFR conditions has about 90
> seconds of life remaining.
> The resulting high speed spiral dive is a result losing all visual
> references and becoming disorientated in cloud...
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

mike regish writes:

> Thought it was 158 seconds before he loses orientation and then whatever it
> takes to crash into the hard edge of the sky.

I recall it being 132.44 seconds.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> mike regish writes:
>
>> Thought it was 158 seconds before he loses orientation and then
>> whatever it takes to crash into the hard edge of the sky.
>
> I recall it being 132.44 seconds.
>

You're a tit.

Oh wait, tit's are useful.

My mistake.


Bertie

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish writes:
>
>> Thought it was 158 seconds before he loses orientation and then whatever
>> it
>> takes to crash into the hard edge of the sky.
>
> I recall it being 132.44 seconds.

At least you're consistent. (Wrong, but consistent)

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>
>>It's called orbital velocity
>>
>>http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm
>
>
> Any object following a ballistic trajectory (disregarding aerodynamic effects)
> is in orbit.

Anthony, that statement makes a road-kill 'possum smarter than you.
Try again, and get back to us when you've figured out your error.

Rip
P.S.: Still waiting for answers to the other issues you ran away from.
Yawn...

[[email protected]]

On Jun 15, 3:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> El Maximo writes:
> > It's called orbital velocity
>
> >http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm
>
> Any object following a ballistic trajectory (disregarding aerodynamic effects)
> is in orbit.


yawn.

[mike regish]

Yeah. That 100th of a second is really relevant.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish writes:
>
>> Thought it was 158 seconds before he loses orientation and then whatever
>> it
>> takes to crash into the hard edge of the sky.
>
> I recall it being 132.44 seconds.

[Mxsmanic]

Rip writes:

> Anthony, that statement makes a road-kill 'possum smarter than you.
> Try again, and get back to us when you've figured out your error.

Get back to me when you're ready to explain the alleged error.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Get back to us when you get a life.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Rip writes:
>
>> Anthony, that statement makes a road-kill 'possum smarter than you.
>> Try again, and get back to us when you've figured out your error.
>
> Get back to me when you're ready to explain the alleged error.

I'm sure there are enough definitions of orbit for you to choose from that
you wouldn't bother learning, only arguing.

In any event, you have exposed another hole in your knowledge.

[Mxsmanic]

El Maximo writes:

> I'm sure there are enough definitions of orbit for you to choose from that
> you wouldn't bother learning, only arguing.

In other words, I am not in error.

[[email protected]]

Well, MX, consider the case of a ballistic track that starts off with
an initial vertical velocity that is less than escape velocity.

Up, then down, until it hits what someone so nicely described as 'the
hard edge of the sky". Is your assertion that is orbital?

[Jose]

> Well, MX, consider the case of a ballistic track that starts off with
> an initial vertical velocity that is less than escape velocity.
>
> Up, then down, until it hits what someone so nicely described as 'the
> hard edge of the sky". Is your assertion that is orbital?

Suppose that, as the rock was passing through the soft part of the sky
(we neglect air friction because this is powered freefall flight), the
earth shrunk to the size of a walnut. The flight path would stay the
same, and orbit the walnut.

Escape velocity is the velocity required to escape the earth's
gravitational field (go up and not come down at all). What we call
"orbital velocity" is the velocity required to remain in a circular
orbit around the earth, at an altitude of about four thousand miles
above the earth's center. At the apogee of a sufficiently elliptical
orbit, the actual velocity can be arbitrarily small.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Up, then down, until it hits what someone so nicely described as 'the
> hard edge of the sky". Is your assertion that is orbital?

Absolutely. The orbit doesn't seem like an orbit because it intersects the
planet's surface, but if the Earth were a dimensionless point with the same
mass, the track would be an ellipsoidal orbit around that point.

Ballistic tracks at the surface are the very tips of very eccentric orbits
that intersect the Earth.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Suppose that, as the rock was passing through the soft part of the sky
> (we neglect air friction because this is powered freefall flight), the
> earth shrunk to the size of a walnut. The flight path would stay the
> same, and orbit the walnut.

Exactly. At least someone here is capable of abstract thinking.

[[email protected]]

I used the escape velocity limitation to disallow the obvious
argument.


The intitial velocity limitation says 'vertical'. I don't care what
size the 'walnut' is, it will be impacted given there was no
horizontal velocity component.

Even if there was, by the way, the Newtonian physics demand the path
will cross the starting point, and the implication to most readers
would be that was on a surface.

Jose, I don't think from an initial impluse, which is the model I
described, you can avoid impact unless the mass of the projectile is
such that conservation of momentum would demand the launching surface
move enough out of the way of the way to avoid the impact.

You really can't go orbital with a initial impulse launch from a
realizable surface unless the object gets redirected as it gains
altitude. I did not allow that redirection in my model.

As for abstract thinking mentioned in another post? I might use a word
other than abstract.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Rip writes:
>
>> Anthony, that statement makes a road-kill 'possum smarter than you.
>> Try again, and get back to us when you've figured out your error.
>
> Get back to me when you're ready to explain the alleged error.
>



I'll tel you what the error is for $400.

Bertie



























I'll tell you what it is for

[Jose]

> The intitial velocity limitation says 'vertical'.

I haven't really been following the thread, so I don't know what the
initial thing is (except, by the thread title, that it's a
miscommunication about whether the 1g force one feels standing still is
to be "counted" or not, and whether a degenerate case of the barrel roll
"counts".

> I don't care what size the 'walnut' is,
> it will be impacted given there was no
> horizontal velocity component.

True. But if there is =no= horizontal component, you don't have a very
interesting maneuver.

btw, is a satellite "in orbit" if it blows up before it completes a
complete revolution (even though it would have completed it just like
any other orbiting satellite?)

> Even if there was, by the way, the Newtonian physics demand the path
> will cross the starting point,

True (fsvo starting point)

> and the implication to most readers
> would be that was on a surface.

Depends on the situation. Rockets start from the surface, but don't
"enter orbit" until they are far from that surface (yes, this involves
acceleration).

> Jose, I don't think from an initial impluse, which is the model I
> described, you can avoid impact unless the mass of the projectile is
> such that conservation of momentum would demand the launching surface
> move enough out of the way of the way to avoid the impact.

If by "impulse" you mean "instantaneous change in velocity" then you
would need the launching surface (if there be one) to move out of the
way. But you don't need a launching surface. You can jump into the air
(vertically) and then apply a (huge) impulse horizontally while you are
still airborne, and you will be in orbit. (IF we are talking about
instantaneous impluses, why not extend the fantasy)

If by impluse you merely mean "very fast change in veolocity", then
there will be some value of "very" for which you can avoid impact.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> I'm sure there are enough definitions of orbit for you to choose from
>> that you wouldn't bother learning, only arguing.
>
> In other words, I am not in error.
>

Yes, you are. You are always in error.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jose writes:
>
>> Suppose that, as the rock was passing through the soft part of the
sky
>> (we neglect air friction because this is powered freefall flight),
the
>> earth shrunk to the size of a walnut. The flight path would stay the
>> same, and orbit the walnut.
>
> Exactly. At least someone here is capable of abstract thinking.
>

Nope. Worng again fjukkktard.


And if you find everyone so tedious, why stay?

I know why, don't I fjukktard?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Up, then down, until it hits what someone so nicely described as 'the
>> hard edge of the sky". Is your assertion that is orbital?
>
> Absolutely. The orbit doesn't seem like an orbit because it
> intersects the planet's surface, but if the Earth were a dimensionless
> point with the same mass, the track would be an ellipsoidal orbit
> around that point.
>
> Ballistic tracks at the surface are the very tips of very eccentric
> orbits that intersect the Earth.
>



Uh, nope.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> And if you find everyone so tedious, why stay?

I don't find everyone here tedious. There are lots of stupid people in the
world, but that doesn't mean I should write off the entire species. I have a
lot of patience.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The intitial velocity limitation says 'vertical'. I don't care what
> size the 'walnut' is, it will be impacted given there was no
> horizontal velocity component.

There is always a horizontal component, although one isn't really necessary.

> Even if there was, by the way, the Newtonian physics demand the path
> will cross the starting point, and the implication to most readers
> would be that was on a surface.

If there's a surface in the way, the starting point and ending point will be
different.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 16, 12:46 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > The intitial velocity limitation says 'vertical'. I don't care what
> > size the 'walnut' is, it will be impacted given there was no
> > horizontal velocity component.
>
> There is always a horizontal component, although one isn't really necessary.
>
> > Even if there was, by the way, the Newtonian physics demand the path
> > will cross the starting point, and the implication to most readers
> > would be that was on a surface.
>
> If there's a surface in the way, the starting point and ending point will be
> different.

Care to write an equation or two to demonstrate that? It's a two body
problem, one massive with respect to the other. The initial conditions
are a vertical impulse from the surface, of a massive sphere. That's
high school physics.

[[email protected]]

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

> > It's called orbital velocity
> >
> > http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm

> Any object following a ballistic trajectory (disregarding aerodynamic effects)
> is in orbit.

Stardate 1369.000001

The starship Redundant has just come out of warp and is approaching
Fjukktard IV.

On the bridge...

Captain: Helmsman, assume a standard orbit around the planet.

Helmsman: Aye, Aye, sir.

(Sounds of engines adjusting)

Captain: Tactical! We're heading straight for the planet!
Have the inhabitants locked on to us with some sort of tractor beam?

Tactical: Negative sir, Helmsman Mxsamanic has put us on a collision
course with the planet.

Captain: Mr Mxsmanic, what the hell is going on?

Helmsman: Well, sir, you said assume an orbit and any object
following a ballistic trajectory (disregarding aerodynamic effects) is
in orbit, so I...

(Anything further from Mr Mxsmanic is unintelligible as the Captain
has both hands firmly around his neck)

Captain: Navigator, take the helm and put us in a real orbit! Security,
throw Mr Mxsmanic out off the nearest airlock!

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Why would you want to throw Mx from an airlock? If you did it after
adjusting the orbit, he'd contribute to space junk after getting his
black belt in Internet Pest.

The airlock idea for storage is a good idea though. Don't do a bleed
to space, that would mess up the insides of the airlock as badly as
the insides of some microwave ovens.



On Jun 16, 3:05 pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > El Maximo writes:
> > > It's called orbital velocity
>
> > >http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm
> > Any object following a ballistic trajectory (disregarding aerodynamic effects)
> > is in orbit.
>
> Stardate 1369.000001
>
> The starship Redundant has just come out of warp and is approaching
> Fjukktard IV.
>
> On the bridge...
>
> Captain: Helmsman, assume a standard orbit around the planet.
>
> Helmsman: Aye, Aye, sir.
>
> (Sounds of engines adjusting)
>
> Captain: Tactical! We're heading straight for the planet!
> Have the inhabitants locked on to us with some sort of tractor beam?
>
> Tactical: Negative sir, Helmsman Mxsamanic has put us on a collision
> course with the planet.
>
> Captain: Mr Mxsmanic, what the hell is going on?
>
> Helmsman: Well, sir, you said assume an orbit and any object
> following a ballistic trajectory (disregarding aerodynamic effects) is
> in orbit, so I...
>
> (Anything further from Mr Mxsmanic is unintelligible as the Captain
> has both hands firmly around his neck)
>
> Captain: Navigator, take the helm and put us in a real orbit! Security,
> throw Mr Mxsmanic out off the nearest airlock!
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> El Maximo writes:
>
>> I'm sure there are enough definitions of orbit for you to choose from
>> that
>> you wouldn't bother learning, only arguing.
>
> In other words, I am not in error.

No, in other words, you do not understand.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Care to write an equation or two to demonstrate that?

You need an equation?

I throw a baseball into the air. It lands twenty feet away. The starting
point and ending point are different.

> It's a two body
> problem, one massive with respect to the other. The initial conditions
> are a vertical impulse from the surface, of a massive sphere. That's
> high school physics.

I finished high school a long time ago.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Helmsman: Well, sir, you said assume an orbit ...

No, the captain said assume a _standard_ orbit, which presumably would not
intersect the planet's surface.

[[email protected]]

Read the post -- it specified vertical. It may be your concept of
vertical is different than the one commonly accepted. If your throw
was vertical you had aerodynamic effects, disallowed earlier in your
earlier post.

I would have suspected you did finish high school some time ago. That
you have forgotten what you learned is obvious.



On Jun 16, 4:16 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Care to write an equation or two to demonstrate that?
>
> You need an equation?
>
> I throw a baseball into the air. It lands twenty feet away. The starting
> point and ending point are different.
>
> > It's a two body
> > problem, one massive with respect to the other. The initial conditions
> > are a vertical impulse from the surface, of a massive sphere. That's
> > high school physics.
>
> I finished high school a long time ago.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Helmsman: Well, sir, you said assume an orbit ...
>
> No, the captain said assume a _standard_ orbit, which presumably would not
> intersect the planet's surface.

Where is that defined?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> And if you find everyone so tedious, why stay?
>
> I don't find everyone here tedious.


Yes, you do. You have saud so.

There are lots of stupid people
> in the world, but that doesn't mean I should write off the entire
> species. I have a lot of patience.
>

No, you don't. Idiocy is not patience


Bertie

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> I throw a baseball into the air.


You would miss.

[Jim Logajan]

"El Maximo" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> writes:
>>
>>> Helmsman: Well, sir, you said assume an orbit ...
>>
>> No, the captain said assume a _standard_ orbit, which presumably
>> would not intersect the planet's surface.
>
> Where is that defined?

Starfleet regulations - Sir!

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Orbit

:-0

Helmsman - set course out of this thread; maximum warp. Engage!

[Mxsmanic]

El Maximo writes:

> Where is that defined?

What type of standard orbit would pass through a planet's surface?

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> El Maximo writes:
>
>> Where is that defined?
>
> What type of standard orbit would pass through a planet's surface?

So , you're making it up.

[Mxsmanic]

El Maximo writes:

> So, you're making it up.

That's why they call it science fiction.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> El Maximo writes:
>
>> So, you're making it up.
>
> That's why they call it science fiction.

Nope. Orbits are not science fiction. They really do exist. Some night, when
you're back on your meds, go outside and look up. That big round thing in
the sky (most of us call it the moon, but you tend to make up your own
definitions, so I don't know what you call it) is "in orbit" around the
earth.

[ManhattanMan]

El Maximo wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I throw a baseball into the air.
>
>
> You would miss.

Maybe more viagra to make him taller would help?

[Mxsmanic]

El Maximo writes:

> Nope. Orbits are not science fiction. They really do exist.

Standard orbits for interplanetary spacecraft that can exceed the speed of
light are science fiction.

> That big round thing in
> the sky (most of us call it the moon, but you tend to make up your own
> definitions, so I don't know what you call it) is "in orbit" around the
> earth.

No, it's not. Both the Earth and Moon orbit the Sun; the Moon does not orbit
the Earth. If you don't believe me, plot the paths of the Earth and Moon
around the Sun to scale, and you'll see that the Earth never accelerates the
Moon away from the Sun. That's because it's actually in orbit around the Sun,
along with the Earth; they form a binary planet, the only one of its kind in
our planetary system.

[[email protected]]

Poor misunderestanding boy. Consider the cirumstance when the moon's
shadow is cast on the earth. Every movement then, until it's 90
degrees displaced, has an acceleration component away from the sun.
For that matter, 180 degrees later, when it lies along the earth path,
moving toward the moon, it has an acceleration vector with a component
away from the sun.

Basic mechanics.

Heavens, I teach psych, and know this stuff.

[SS2MO]

On Jun 11, 1:09 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Myth:
>
> It is impossible to perform a barrel roll such that the pilot feels exactly
> 1 gee of force perpendicular to the floor of the cockpit. (Barrel roll is
> defined here as the maneuver depicted by the definitions and diagrams on
> these website:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_rollhttp://www.flightsimbooks.com/jfs/page74.phphttp://home.comcast.net/~john.schneider9/barrel_roll.jpg)
>
> Fact:
>
> The aspect that I think appears to mislead people is the presence of a
> gravitational field and an implied requirement that the axis of the helix
> must remain straight and parallel with the (flat) ground. But the latter
> requirement can be dispensed with and still yield a recognizable helical
> flight path - and that is enough to make a 1 gee barrel roll possible. The
> "trick" is accomplished by superimposing two equations of motion:
>
> (1) Start with a "zero gee" parabolic trajectory. So basically the plane
> travels laterally over the ground while first traveling up (and then down)
> such that the pilot would feel weightless absent any other motions. The arc
> is a classic parabola.
>
> (2) Superimpose by vector addition the centrifugal force of the plane
> "flying" a circle around (and along) the moving center established by the
> parabolic trajectory in (1).
>
> (3) Set the radius and angular speed of the circle in (2) to yield one gee
> equivalent force and rotate plane's attitude to keep the centrifugal force
> vector perpendicular to the floor. End of procedure.
>
> A reasonable nit pick is that the axis of the helix of the barrel roll
> doesn't remain "straight and level." But none of the definitions explicitly
> state that requirement. And in any case, it is possible to end the 1 G
> barrel roll at the same altitude at which it began.
>
> So there. :-)
>
> (If there is a demand (and I can find more time) I can work out and post
> the complete set of equations of motion.)

The answer to your question as you ask it is no. You can not perform
a "Barrel roll" and maintain 1 G. We all have 1 G pressing on us as
we are sitting at our desks, or flying straight and level in an
airplane. To perform a barrel roll, you pick a point 20 degrees off
heading (usually to the left in aircraft with US engines). You then
must execute the beginings of a loop by applying back pressure on the
stick. You can not do this without adding additional G forces. You
should be at 90 degrees bank when you are just over the point you
selected 20 degrees off the origional heading. As you continue the
roll, you will be at a point 40 degrees off the origional heading when
you have completed 180 degrees of roll and your wings should be level
with the horizion in the inverted position. As you continue the roll
the nose of the aircraft will be 20 degrees below the horizion and at
a 90 degree bank when you are back at the point 20 degrees off the
origional heading. You now continue the last quarter of the roll
while "pulling" to wings level - again you can not do this without
adding G.

I have done thousands of barrel rolls - and have done them with open
bottles of water on the dash - same principle as swinging a bucket of
water over your head and not spilling any. As long as you keep
positive "G" (not gee) force on the plane - the water will not spill -
let it go negative and you will have a mess.

If the question you are asking is can this maneuver be done by adding
1 additional G unit (now you would be at 2 G's) the answer is you
could rotate around and probably not spill the water, but you would
not execute what is considered a "Barrel Roll" - it would be more of a
sloppy aileron roll where you end up lowing altitude from your
origional position.

A "slow roll" is one where the aircraft follows a straight line and if
you are doing these on a horizontal line you will not keep "positive"
G's on you and the aircraft.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> Where is that defined?
>
> What type of standard orbit would pass through a planet's surface?
>

One you would fly.



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Poor misunderestanding boy. Consider the cirumstance when the moon's
> shadow is cast on the earth. Every movement then, until it's 90
> degrees displaced, has an acceleration component away from the sun.
> For that matter, 180 degrees later, when it lies along the earth path,
> moving toward the moon, it has an acceleration vector with a component
> away from the sun.

As I've said, plot the actual paths around the Sun. You'll see that the
moon's path is always concave to the Sun, that is, it is never accelerating
away from the star.

> Heavens, I teach psych, and know this stuff.

I didn't think that celestial mechanics was part of the psychology curriculum.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Poor misunderestanding boy. Consider the cirumstance when the moon's
>> shadow is cast on the earth. Every movement then, until it's 90
>> degrees displaced, has an acceleration component away from the sun.
>> For that matter, 180 degrees later, when it lies along the earth
>> path, moving toward the moon, it has an acceleration vector with a
>> component away from the sun.
>
> As I've said, plot the actual paths around the Sun. You'll see that
> the moon's path is always concave to the Sun, that is, it is never
> accelerating away from the star.
>
>> Heavens, I teach psych, and know this stuff.
>
> I didn't think that celestial mechanics was part of the psychology
> curriculum.
>

Fjukktard



Bertie

[[email protected]]

Acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity. These
quantities are called vectors, not scalers, because there's a
direction associated with them, but we don't need to worry about that
right now.

There are times when the moon is accelerating away from the sun. That
does not mean its velocity is away from the sun, only that it is
decreasing. If it is decreasing then it is accelerating in the other
direction.

Mechanics are not part of the psych courses, you're quite right about
that. Never the less, the statement I made above is correct.

Also, for what it's worth, I'm not a pilot, at least not in the
certified sense. I probably get 50 hours of dual in a complex single a
year though, flying with my husband, and yes I know how to, in a real
airplane, fly a ILS approach under the hood to minimums and land.




On Jun 18, 2:49 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Poor misunderestanding boy. Consider the cirumstance when the moon's
> > shadow is cast on the earth. Every movement then, until it's 90
> > degrees displaced, has an acceleration component away from the sun.
> > For that matter, 180 degrees later, when it lies along the earth path,
> > moving toward the moon, it has an acceleration vector with a component
> > away from the sun.
>
> As I've said, plot the actual paths around the Sun. You'll see that the
> moon's path is always concave to the Sun, that is, it is never accelerating
> away from the star.
>
> > Heavens, I teach psych, and know this stuff.
>
> I didn't think that celestial mechanics was part of the psychology curriculum.

[Bob Moore]

SS2MO wrote

> As you continue the roll, you will be at a point 40 degrees off the
> origional heading when you have completed 180 degrees of roll and
> your wings should be level with the horizion in the inverted position.

How about 90 degrees off the original heading when inverted?

Bob Moore

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe wrote:
>
> > To put it another way, if you closed your eyes, you wouldn't know you've
> > done a roll (given you go for the 'non-standard' 1G roll), other than
> > the initial sensation of beginning the turn, and then the sensation of
> > the turn stopping.
> >
>
> Not sure exactly where you are with this, but as what you are saying
> pertains to barrel rolls begun from level flight or from a position with
> the nose below the horizon, don't forget that the entire gist of the
> misunderstanding that has been running rampant on this thread about
> barrel rolls and doing them at 1 positive g can be centered and
> completely focused on the fact that it's the ENTRY and the EXIT of the
> roll, and how these two factors interplay into the roll itself that is
> causing all the confusion.
> The one factor that can't be taken out of the barrel roll scenario is
> that no matter how you cut it, if PITCH is a factor in a barrel roll,
> there will be an indication on a g meter above 1 g as that pitch change
> is being made. In a normal barrel roll you have pitch change as the nose
> transverses the roll in it's helical path.
> If a barrel roll requires the nose of the aircraft to be above the
> horizon during the entry and then again brought back to the horizon
> during the recovery (as it does) you will absolutely be showing more
> than 1 positive g on the g meter during the roll, and if it's a
> retaining double needle g meter, after the roll when you bring the
> airplane home........period! This is a fact of life. As soon as the
> aircraft's nose shows a positive nose rate in PITCH as it's raised
> during the roll entry and then again during the recovery as it's raised
> again to level flight, that g meter will leave 1 and show more than 1
> positive g.
>
> Now here is the part that is causing all the confusion. ONCE the nose
> has been raised above the horizon (and that over 1 g has been registered
> on the g meter) as you feed in aileron you can PLAY WITH THE BACK
> PRESSURE being applied and EASE OFF the positive g to a LOWER LEVEL if
> desired over the top of the roll, but that level can't be unloaded below
> 1 g or the arc of the roll will be destroyed. It's the COMBINATION of
> roll and pitch that is producing the roll arc and those TWO pressures
> MUST be maintained to produce the roll.
> So the bottom line is simply that to do a barrel roll where the nose
> must be both above and below the horizon line starting from level flight
> you need over 1 g during the entry and exit, but you can reduce the g to
> 1 through the top of the roll if desired.

I agree with your standard barrel roll exactly - but make the point:
* if you don't do it standard...
* ie don't pitch up
* don't pitch to recover level
* etc

ie do *not* do the standard barrel roll - and do not adjust pitch, other
than to counter any G (+ or -) that will occur in such a roll due to
airspeed changing, ie maintain 1G throughout the roll.

--
Duncan

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-18 07:01:05 -0400, Bob Moore > said:

> SS2MO wrote
>
>> As you continue the roll, you will be at a point 40 degrees off the
>> origional heading when you have completed 180 degrees of roll and
>> your wings should be level with the horizion in the inverted position.
>
> How about 90 degrees off the original heading when inverted?
>
> Bob Moore

This is exactly what is causing all the "confusion" on this thread
concerning barrel rolls.
Many manuals (yes, including the Navy) teach ballel rolls as a
precision maneuver beginning from a specified entry and proceeding with
exact heading changes desired at exact points in the roll. The 90
degree heading change at inverted is usually found in this "classic"
description for the execution of a barrel roll.
This is fine if learning to do a barrel roll in this manner is your
goal, but no one in this thread should be misled into thinking that
acheiving these heading changes is REQUIRED to execute a barrel roll.
You can execute a barrel roll as tightly or as loosely as the
airplane's flight envelope will allow.
Putting out here that a 90 degree heading change, or ANY specific
heading change at ANY point in the roll is a requirement for executing
a barrel roll in an airplane is misleading and totally incorrect.
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-18 08:52:34 -0400, Dave Doe > said:

> In article >,
> says...
>> Dave Doe wrote:
>>
>>> To put it another way, if you closed your eyes, you wouldn't know you've
>>> done a roll (given you go for the 'non-standard' 1G roll), other than
>>> the initial sensation of beginning the turn, and then the sensation of
>>> the turn stopping.
>>>
>>
>> Not sure exactly where you are with this, but as what you are saying
>> pertains to barrel rolls begun from level flight or from a position with
>> the nose below the horizon, don't forget that the entire gist of the
>> misunderstanding that has been running rampant on this thread about
>> barrel rolls and doing them at 1 positive g can be centered and
>> completely focused on the fact that it's the ENTRY and the EXIT of the
>> roll, and how these two factors interplay into the roll itself that is
>> causing all the confusion.
>> The one factor that can't be taken out of the barrel roll scenario is
>> that no matter how you cut it, if PITCH is a factor in a barrel roll,
>> there will be an indication on a g meter above 1 g as that pitch change
>> is being made. In a normal barrel roll you have pitch change as the nose
>> transverses the roll in it's helical path.
>> If a barrel roll requires the nose of the aircraft to be above the
>> horizon during the entry and then again brought back to the horizon
>> during the recovery (as it does) you will absolutely be showing more
>> than 1 positive g on the g meter during the roll, and if it's a
>> retaining double needle g meter, after the roll when you bring the
>> airplane home........period! This is a fact of life. As soon as the
>> aircraft's nose shows a positive nose rate in PITCH as it's raised
>> during the roll entry and then again during the recovery as it's raised
>> again to level flight, that g meter will leave 1 and show more than 1
>> positive g.
>>
>> Now here is the part that is causing all the confusion. ONCE the nose
>> has been raised above the horizon (and that over 1 g has been registered
>> on the g meter) as you feed in aileron you can PLAY WITH THE BACK
>> PRESSURE being applied and EASE OFF the positive g to a LOWER LEVEL if
>> desired over the top of the roll, but that level can't be unloaded below
>> 1 g or the arc of the roll will be destroyed. It's the COMBINATION of
>> roll and pitch that is producing the roll arc and those TWO pressures
>> MUST be maintained to produce the roll.
>> So the bottom line is simply that to do a barrel roll where the nose
>> must be both above and below the horizon line starting from level flight
>> you need over 1 g during the entry and exit, but you can reduce the g to
>> 1 through the top of the roll if desired.
>
> I agree with your standard barrel roll exactly - but make the point:
> * if you don't do it standard...
> * ie don't pitch up
> * don't pitch to recover level
> * etc
>
> ie do *not* do the standard barrel roll - and do not adjust pitch, other
> than to counter any G (+ or -) that will occur in such a roll due to
> airspeed changing, ie maintain 1G throughout the roll.

Again I'm totally lost as to what you are trying to say with this, but
in the interest of clarification, it's the pitch input that is creating
the helical arc for a barrel roll. No positive pitch; no helical arc.
No helical arc, no barrel roll.

The heading change realized at any point in the roll by this helical
arc will be a direct result of the combination of pitch input and the
roll rate applied.
You can perform a barrel roll at any time and at any beginning nose
attitude by rolling the aircraft and applying a diagonal pitch input at
the same time. The one common denominator in all this is thatany barrel
roll requires offset positive pitch input.
In military training, you initially learn barrel rolls as a precision
maneuver requiring specific heading changes at various points in the
roll. If you go into fighter lead in training, you re-address the
barrel roll scenario once more in the BFM/ACM stage of your training as
a maneuver classified as ANY roll performed in 3 dimensions through 3
dimensional space.
This completely opens the Pandora's box on the issue of barrel roll,
which is then dealt with as moving the aircraft through all 3
dimensions as tightly or as loosely as the envelope will allow.
Dudley Henriques

[Bob Moore]

Dudley Henriques wrote
> This completely opens the Pandora's box on the issue of barrel roll,
> which is then dealt with as moving the aircraft through all 3
> dimensions as tightly or as loosely as the envelope will allow.

Dudley...just point us to a reference that states the above. :-)

I have posted several of my references in the past, waiting on you.

Bob Moore

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-18 12:51:04 -0400, Bob Moore > said:

> Dudley Henriques wrote
>> This completely opens the Pandora's box on the issue of barrel roll,
>> which is then dealt with as moving the aircraft through all 3
>> dimensions as tightly or as loosely as the envelope will allow.
>
> Dudley...just point us to a reference that states the above. :-)
>
> I have posted several of my references in the past, waiting on you.
>
> Bob Moore

Quite frankly Morre, I don't believe you really want references at all,
but rather references YOU agree with. :-)
You seem to enjoy quoting Bill Kershner, who is a source I highly
respect and have used for many years.
Considering this, I have gone to the DL (dusty library) room up here
and dug out a Kershner source on this for you.
If you go to page 289 in Bill's "Flight Instructor Manual" third
edition, you will find a section on Barrel Rolls.
If you read that section through, you will notice that Kershner first
treats the issue of Barrel Roll in the Classic manner that asks for the
90 degree heading change at the inverted point half way through the
roll.
Now read on a bit further to where Bill summerizes the issue of Barrel
Rolls. On page 290, down at the bottom of the page, start reading where
Bill writes;
"ANOTHER METHOD OF DOING A BARREL ROLL"
This section completely explains in plain English what I have been
telling you since God knows when about barrel rolls; that what YOU are
describing as a barrel roll, is simply the way barrel rolls are taught
as a precision maneuver by many training programs (including the Navy
BTW).
All I have been trying to explain to you from the gitgo is that this is
NOT the only way a barrel roll can be performed AERODYNAMICALLY. What
you have been describing as a barrel roll is nothing more or less than
ONE PROCEDURE by which a Barrel roll can be performed.
If you like, I will be most happy to fly with you in a Decathlon at any
time you desire and SHOW you a barrel roll with a 90 degree change of
heading at the inverted point........an 80 degree change of heading at
the inverted point......a 70 degree change of heading at the inverted
point....and so on, right down to the maximum helical arc the Decathlon
is capable of managing. YOU of course can pay for the flight :-)
I of course will buy the drinks :-)))
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> There are times when the moon is accelerating away from the sun.

When?

> That does not mean its velocity is away from the sun, only that it is
> decreasing. If it is decreasing then it is accelerating in the other
> direction.

Show your work.

> Also, for what it's worth, I'm not a pilot, at least not in the
> certified sense. I probably get 50 hours of dual in a complex single a
> year though, flying with my husband, and yes I know how to, in a real
> airplane, fly a ILS approach under the hood to minimums and land.

I'm not sure if that's sufficient to join the treehouse club. You'll have to
ask the little boys who run it.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> There are times when the moon is accelerating away from the sun.
>
> When?

Quite frequently, actually.


>> That does not mean its velocity is away from the sun, only that it is
>> decreasing. If it is decreasing then it is accelerating in the other
>> direction.
>
> Show your work.

Right here on the whiteboard. Hop a flight and come look at it.

>
>> Also, for what it's worth, I'm not a pilot, at least not in the
>> certified sense. I probably get 50 hours of dual in a complex single a
>> year though, flying with my husband, and yes I know how to, in a real
>> airplane, fly a ILS approach under the hood to minimums and land.
>
> I'm not sure if that's sufficient to join the treehouse club. You'll have
> to
> ask the little boys who run it.

REAL AIRPLANE. She's in.

[[email protected]]

You may wish -- not that'd you do it, of course -- to look at any
basic physics text, or even a math text. Acceleration is discussed in
lots of places. You are confused by velocity and acceleration, but
then again you seem to be confused by lots of things.

I'd suggest you see a psychologist, but not this one, even though you
might be an interesting study. I work with kids at risk, might have
helped you 30 some years ago.

But probably not.







On Jun 18, 3:12 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > There are times when the moon is accelerating away from the sun.
>
> When?
>
> > That does not mean its velocity is away from the sun, only that it is
> > decreasing. If it is decreasing then it is accelerating in the other
> > direction.
>
> Show your work.
>
> > Also, for what it's worth, I'm not a pilot, at least not in the
> > certified sense. I probably get 50 hours of dual in a complex single a
> > year though, flying with my husband, and yes I know how to, in a real
> > airplane, fly a ILS approach under the hood to minimums and land.
>
> I'm not sure if that's sufficient to join the treehouse club. You'll have to
> ask the little boys who run it.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Jun 18, 9:12 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > There are times when the moon is accelerating away from the sun.
>
> When?
>
> > That does not mean its velocity is away from the sun, only that it is
> > decreasing. If it is decreasing then it is accelerating in the other
> > direction.
>
> Show your work.
>
> > Also, for what it's worth, I'm not a pilot, at least not in the
> > certified sense. I probably get 50 hours of dual in a complex single a
> > year though, flying with my husband, and yes I know how to, in a real
> > airplane, fly a ILS approach under the hood to minimums and land.
>
> I'm not sure if that's sufficient to join the treehouse club. You'll have to
> ask the little boys who run it.



She can fly. she's approved.

You can't even find tthe lader to theh treehouse, you're not.


Fjukkwit.

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

El Maximo writes:

> Quite frequently, actually.

No, show me a diagram. Draw the orbit to scale. You'll see.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> El Maximo writes:
>
>> Quite frequently, actually.
>
> No, show me a diagram. Draw the orbit to scale. You'll see.

I did. Come take a look.

[[email protected]]

Mx does not know that acceleration is dv/dt, he thinks so long as v
doesn't change its sign in whatever coordinate system (I think that's
the right phrase) acceleration doesn't, either.

If he ever took math in school, he probably failed it as badly as he
did social science. "Does not play well with others" comes to mind as
something that would appear in his record.

He writes well enough, though.

Oh well, I'm off to deal with some people I can actually help.





On Jun 19, 5:51 am, "El Maximo" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > El Maximo writes:
>
> >> Quite frequently, actually.
>
> > No, show me a diagram. Draw the orbit to scale. You'll see.
>
> I did. Come take a look.

[El Maximo]

> wrote in message
oups.com...

> If he ever took math in school, he probably failed it as badly as he
> did social science.

I'd love to see him on "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?", arguing that
he's right.

[Jon]

On Jun 19, 7:57 am, wrote:
> Mx
> [...]

> "Does not play well with others" comes to mind as
> something that would appear in his record.
>
> He writes well enough, though.

"If you can talk brilliantly enough about a problem, it can
create the consoling illusion that it has been mastered..." Stanley
Kubrick

[Jon]

On Jun 18, 8:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
> On Jun 18, 9:12 pm, it revealed more about itself with:
>
> > I'm not sure if that's sufficient to join the treehouse club. You'll have to
> > ask the little boys who run it.

There's so much for her to work with, in the above two sentences ;)

> She can fly. she's approved.
>
> You can't even find tthe lader to theh treehouse, you're not.
>
> Fjukkwit.
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> Quite frequently, actually.
>
> No, show me a diagram. Draw the orbit to scale. You'll see.
>


You'd need a big sheet of paper for that, mmoron


Bertie

[vincent norris]

>>>> An aileron roll is actualy not dissimilar to a Barrel roll in flight
>>>> path.

You obviously didn't learn to do barrel rolls in the U.S.Navy.

vince norris

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-21 22:58:36 -0400, vincent norris > said:

>>>>> An aileron roll is actualy not dissimilar to a Barrel roll in flight
>>>>> path.
>
> You obviously didn't learn to do barrel rolls in the U.S.Navy.
>
> vince norris

A lot of people mistakenly classify an aileron roll as a narrow offset
barrel roll thinking the natural arc the nose describes as it raises
before roll initiation and then lowers due to drag during the back side
of the roll resembles a barrel roll.
Seen from the ground, especially to a novice, an aileron roll,
especially an aileron roll performed in a low performance airplane with
a slow roll rate can indeed APPEAR to be a narrow offset barrel roll.
For the aileron roll, the nose is raised and set, then aileron applied
with just a touch of inside rudder to nullify the adverse yaw then
released. As the aircraft rolls with aileron, drag begins to pull the
nose down. The result of this, especially if no forward stick is
introduced to "trim out" the roll through inverted, is for the nose to
dish out the bottom of the roll which viewed from the ground can easily
be mistaken for a deliberate maneuver resembling a barrel roll.

Although it's true the nose does raise and lower during a normal
aileron roll,an aileron roll is still basically performed on the
longitudinal axis of the airplane using aileron or spoiler (can even
be aided by differential tails in some fighters) as the prime roll
control and doesn't meet the 3 dimensional rule through space that
defines the helical arc of a barrel roll.

Even this should not be mistaken for the 90 degree offset at inverted
barrel roll as taught by the Navy. The Navy version, and indeed
anyoneperforming a helical 90 degree heading offset through inverted is
doing the classical version of a barrel roll; the version most often
taught as a precision training maneuver.
So you are as I'm sure you already know, perfectly correct.
This explanation I hope might help others to understand this a bit better.
Dudley Henriques