![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "LordAvalon" wrote in message om... "Rob Stokes" wrote in message ... I have no proof, but looping an airliner without the passengers being aware is not possible. Perhaps visually the passengers wouldn't notice, but balance wise / spatially they certainly would. I have heard from many sources that the last airliner to be taken for a loop was a B-707 after which many of the A/C components shifted up to an inch, the pilot was immediately disciplined! other similar instances have occurred on Russian airliners by Ex-military pilots shortly after the war. At the Goodwood Festival Of Speed (England) this year, there was a 'semi' aerobatic display by a south African jumbo (consisting of very low steep turns) Thanks for your input. I am not an expert in flying terms so maybe it is not exactly "looping" i heard of. The plane would drop to the left for exemple with his longitudinal axis straight and acquire vertical speed. Then the pilot would shift the stick right very slowly to convert this vertical speed in a centrifugal vector. This is supposed to recreate the same phenomemom as a pail full of water tied to a rope you turn fast. So, as this theory goes, after the initial banking the figure would make the passengers feel only a moderate or no increase in their weight, the force being directed towards the floor of the plane. Since the long axis of the plane is not disturbed no other noticeable effects should appear... But if it is unheard of, it may well be purely theorical or simply an urban legend! No. It's possible, but I haven't heard of it being done successfully in the pure vertical plane as in a straight positive g loop. More likely in a three dimensional maneuver like a barrel roll. The energy or Ps bleed for a big jet is tremendous in the vertical plane, and an entry airspeed required to get everything up and around the topside apex would be considerable to say the least. Considering the huge drag index against what would have to be at least a 4 positive g pull to even have a chance at an inverted apex, the entry speed would be prohibitive for safety I think; considering the aerodynamic factors and the requirement for positive g at the top for the scavenger pumps. In other words, floating it through the top unloaded is eliminated from the equation because of the pumps if nothing else. The engines oil system requires positive g to operate. Unloading would deny the engines oil and the result at a high percent RPM or EPR could lose you the engines. The result of that would be a negative nose rate and developing vertical descent while inverted that could really spoil your afternoon :-) In a normal loop, you ease off the positive g at the top to round it off and keep the AOA in limits. In a big jet, this could really be a problem. A three dimensional roll (barrel roll) is possible for a big jet, and has been done, even in the prototype 707. You are right about keeping the g positive all the way around. Both myself and several other demonstration pilots at one time or another have barreled airplanes with a glass of water on the instrument glare shield. I have done it in a D18 Twin Beech several times and Bob Hoover has done it in a Shrike Commander......many times. :-) In barrel rolling a large airplane, you can keep the stress at a minimum and perform the maneuver in a wide low positive g profile that is kept positive all the way around. Because it's FLOWN around the circle rather than a pure roll on the longitudinal axis, the deep dishout on the back side that would be the result of an aileron roll can be eliminated by the trade off in altitude on the upside against the backside recovery. Basically, even though I'm sure a pure loop has been done by heavy jets at one time or another, I would classify the maneuver as extremely risky at best, and totally unwise to attempt. But as I said....I'm sure somebody managed to get the entry speed necessary to do it regardless of the risk, and somehow managed to pull it around without shedding all the critical parts in the process. But I wouldn't want to be the next pilot to fly that airplane :-) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message link.net...
"LordAvalon" wrote in message om... "Rob Stokes" wrote in message ... I have no proof, but looping an airliner without the passengers being aware is not possible. Perhaps visually the passengers wouldn't notice, but balance wise / spatially they certainly would. I have heard from many sources that the last airliner to be taken for a loop was a B-707 after which many of the A/C components shifted up to an inch, the pilot was immediately disciplined! other similar instances have occurred on Russian airliners by Ex-military pilots shortly after the war. At the Goodwood Festival Of Speed (England) this year, there was a 'semi' aerobatic display by a south African jumbo (consisting of very low steep turns) Thanks for your input. I am not an expert in flying terms so maybe it is not exactly "looping" i heard of. The plane would drop to the left for exemple with his longitudinal axis straight and acquire vertical speed. Then the pilot would shift the stick right very slowly to convert this vertical speed in a centrifugal vector. This is supposed to recreate the same phenomemom as a pail full of water tied to a rope you turn fast. So, as this theory goes, after the initial banking the figure would make the passengers feel only a moderate or no increase in their weight, the force being directed towards the floor of the plane. Since the long axis of the plane is not disturbed no other noticeable effects should appear... But if it is unheard of, it may well be purely theorical or simply an urban legend! No. It's possible, but I haven't heard of it being done successfully in the pure vertical plane as in a straight positive g loop. More likely in a three dimensional maneuver like a barrel roll. The energy or Ps bleed for a big jet is tremendous in the vertical plane, and an entry airspeed required to get everything up and around the topside apex would be considerable to say the least. Considering the huge drag index against what would have to be at least a 4 positive g pull to even have a chance at an inverted apex, the entry speed would be prohibitive for safety I think; considering the aerodynamic factors and the requirement for positive g at the top for the scavenger pumps. In other words, floating it through the top unloaded is eliminated from the equation because of the pumps if nothing else. The engines oil system requires positive g to operate. Unloading would deny the engines oil and the result at a high percent RPM or EPR could lose you the engines. The result of that would be a negative nose rate and developing vertical descent while inverted that could really spoil your afternoon :-) In a normal loop, you ease off the positive g at the top to round it off and keep the AOA in limits. In a big jet, this could really be a problem. A three dimensional roll (barrel roll) is possible for a big jet, and has been done, even in the prototype 707. You are right about keeping the g positive all the way around. Both myself and several other demonstration pilots at one time or another have barreled airplanes with a glass of water on the instrument glare shield. I have done it in a D18 Twin Beech several times and Bob Hoover has done it in a Shrike Commander......many times. :-) In barrel rolling a large airplane, you can keep the stress at a minimum and perform the maneuver in a wide low positive g profile that is kept positive all the way around. Because it's FLOWN around the circle rather than a pure roll on the longitudinal axis, the deep dishout on the back side that would be the result of an aileron roll can be eliminated by the trade off in altitude on the upside against the backside recovery. Basically, even though I'm sure a pure loop has been done by heavy jets at one time or another, I would classify the maneuver as extremely risky at best, and totally unwise to attempt. But as I said....I'm sure somebody managed to get the entry speed necessary to do it regardless of the risk, and somehow managed to pull it around without shedding all the critical parts in the process. But I wouldn't want to be the next pilot to fly that airplane :-) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired Thanks a lot for your learned answer. What I have heard of is certainly what you call "barrel rolling". According to the unreliable "sources", the pilot of a commercial flight would have done this barrel rolling at night. Nobody in the plane would have noticed it but an "Aviation Board Inspector(?)" is supposed to have been present and reported the deed. Which would have led to sanctions against the author... To be confirmed! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
About doing a barrel roll at night with relationship to passengers;
it is possible, and could be done. The passengers, within a closed environment, would feel the onset of whatever positive g was used by the pilot to initiate the roll. If the pilot was very good, and kept perfect control coordination all through the roll, all the passengers would feel would be the positive g and no side g loads would be felt. In short, a barrel roll under the conditions you have stated although possible, would have to be executed perfectly not to alarm passengers subjected to it at night in a closed cabin. :-) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired "LordAvalon" wrote in message om... "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message link.net... "LordAvalon" wrote in message om... "Rob Stokes" wrote in message ... I have no proof, but looping an airliner without the passengers being aware is not possible. Perhaps visually the passengers wouldn't notice, but balance wise / spatially they certainly would. I have heard from many sources that the last airliner to be taken for a loop was a B-707 after which many of the A/C components shifted up to an inch, the pilot was immediately disciplined! other similar instances have occurred on Russian airliners by Ex-military pilots shortly after the war. At the Goodwood Festival Of Speed (England) this year, there was a 'semi' aerobatic display by a south African jumbo (consisting of very low steep turns) Thanks for your input. I am not an expert in flying terms so maybe it is not exactly "looping" i heard of. The plane would drop to the left for exemple with his longitudinal axis straight and acquire vertical speed. Then the pilot would shift the stick right very slowly to convert this vertical speed in a centrifugal vector. This is supposed to recreate the same phenomemom as a pail full of water tied to a rope you turn fast. So, as this theory goes, after the initial banking the figure would make the passengers feel only a moderate or no increase in their weight, the force being directed towards the floor of the plane. Since the long axis of the plane is not disturbed no other noticeable effects should appear... But if it is unheard of, it may well be purely theorical or simply an urban legend! No. It's possible, but I haven't heard of it being done successfully in the pure vertical plane as in a straight positive g loop. More likely in a three dimensional maneuver like a barrel roll. The energy or Ps bleed for a big jet is tremendous in the vertical plane, and an entry airspeed required to get everything up and around the topside apex would be considerable to say the least. Considering the huge drag index against what would have to be at least a 4 positive g pull to even have a chance at an inverted apex, the entry speed would be prohibitive for safety I think; considering the aerodynamic factors and the requirement for positive g at the top for the scavenger pumps. In other words, floating it through the top unloaded is eliminated from the equation because of the pumps if nothing else. The engines oil system requires positive g to operate. Unloading would deny the engines oil and the result at a high percent RPM or EPR could lose you the engines. The result of that would be a negative nose rate and developing vertical descent while inverted that could really spoil your afternoon :-) In a normal loop, you ease off the positive g at the top to round it off and keep the AOA in limits. In a big jet, this could really be a problem. A three dimensional roll (barrel roll) is possible for a big jet, and has been done, even in the prototype 707. You are right about keeping the g positive all the way around. Both myself and several other demonstration pilots at one time or another have barreled airplanes with a glass of water on the instrument glare shield. I have done it in a D18 Twin Beech several times and Bob Hoover has done it in a Shrike Commander......many times. :-) In barrel rolling a large airplane, you can keep the stress at a minimum and perform the maneuver in a wide low positive g profile that is kept positive all the way around. Because it's FLOWN around the circle rather than a pure roll on the longitudinal axis, the deep dishout on the back side that would be the result of an aileron roll can be eliminated by the trade off in altitude on the upside against the backside recovery. Basically, even though I'm sure a pure loop has been done by heavy jets at one time or another, I would classify the maneuver as extremely risky at best, and totally unwise to attempt. But as I said....I'm sure somebody managed to get the entry speed necessary to do it regardless of the risk, and somehow managed to pull it around without shedding all the critical parts in the process. But I wouldn't want to be the next pilot to fly that airplane :-) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired Thanks a lot for your learned answer. What I have heard of is certainly what you call "barrel rolling". According to the unreliable "sources", the pilot of a commercial flight would have done this barrel rolling at night. Nobody in the plane would have noticed it but an "Aviation Board Inspector(?)" is supposed to have been present and reported the deed. Which would have led to sanctions against the author... To be confirmed! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message link.net...
About doing a barrel roll at night with relationship to passengers; it is possible, and could be done. The passengers, within a closed environment, would feel the onset of whatever positive g was used by the pilot to initiate the roll. Dudley, In the original post, the question asked if this could be done without the pax noticing *anything* different from normal flight. Most kerosene queens are flown with very little g loading to keep 'em happy in back, but I can't barrel without pulling a bit on the entry and exit. Now, maybe you or Bob can fly a barrel roll without exceeding 1.3-ish g's, but I know that I can't... and the last time I checked, the grandma back in 23B noticed when the g-meter hit 3+. Can you fly one with *very* light g-loads on the entry? If so, how do you get the nose high enough to recover at that g-load without falling out? Will you show me how to do it???? Thanks, -Dave Russell N2S-3 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave Russell" wrote in message om... "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message link.net... About doing a barrel roll at night with relationship to passengers; it is possible, and could be done. The passengers, within a closed environment, would feel the onset of whatever positive g was used by the pilot to initiate the roll. Dudley, In the original post, the question asked if this could be done without the pax noticing *anything* different from normal flight. Most kerosene queens are flown with very little g loading to keep 'em happy in back, but I can't barrel without pulling a bit on the entry and exit. Now, maybe you or Bob can fly a barrel roll without exceeding 1.3-ish g's, but I know that I can't... and the last time I checked, the grandma back in 23B noticed when the g-meter hit 3+. Can you fly one with *very* light g-loads on the entry? If so, how do you get the nose high enough to recover at that g-load without falling out? Will you show me how to do it???? Thanks, -Dave Russell N2S-3 Hi Dave; Yeah, I just noticed that reference to "from normal flight" myself. The answer of course is "yes". The pax would indeed feel the g all though the roll, but the kicker is that if the pilot was REAL good :-)) the pax might not realize they were in a roll, and since the g would be on the +Gz axis, it could be confused with a pullup, or a steep turn. There's nothing wrong with the description in your post. It's right on! You're perfectly correct that the pax would feel the g. I thought I had made that point in the last post I made. "The passengers, within a closed environment, would feel the onset of whatever positive g was used by the pilot to initiate the roll. If the pilot was very good, and kept perfect control coordination all through the roll, all the passengers would feel would be the positive g" I didn't bother to mention the exit g as I thought it would be obvious. To answer your question about g in the roll; you can execute a barrel roll as tight or as wide as you want to do it, varying the g used to the radius demanded by the control inputs. It's notable that in fighters in ACM, you can execute a very tight loaded roll in 3 dimensions as a vector roll, or you can initiate with positive g, then unload the airplane through the top, then reapply positive g on the backside. I would imagine that anyone trying to fool some pax in the back at night might make a very subtle nose low to increase to entry airspeed, then very easily bring it on up through level flight, blending in exactly the right amount of aileron and elevator needed to get the widest roll radius they could while keeping the airplane at as low a positive g possible to keep that radius. It would be tricky.....but it could be done by the right pilot. I would add however that the exact heavy jet would be a critical item in this theoretical equation of fun and games. Too heavy and the drag index going up the front side might be so great that in order to complete the roll, you would have to tighten up the roll axis and that would increase the g. You might get through it, but it wouldn't be the smooth wide roll needed to fool the gang in back! :-)) Just as an aside to this thing we're discussing in this thread, we used to sometimes play a trick on the techs working with us on a flight test project. Every month, they gave out a ride in a T38 to some ground tech who did a good job with something. We would draw straws to see which one of us would fly them :-) The roll rate of the Talon is a bit of something to see at about .9 mach. It's restricted to a partial lateral stick throw to avoid coupling the airplane, but once in a while since my test work was in coupling anyway, I'd have some fun with the techs. All these guys were pretty savvy in aerodynamics and were familiar with the T38's reputation for a fast aileron throw. If I got a new tech back there, I'd take him out to the restricted area and do some basic aerobatics with him (they all liked that :-) Sooner or later, I'd ask if they wanted to see a max deflect aileron roll at .9. Invariably the answer was "great....do one!!" I'd take the airplane out to speed and ask if they were ready. When I got the answer, I'd jerk the stick quickly to the side laterally about two inches and return it to level flight again in one quick motion. This usually bounced their heads off the canopy on the opposite side of the input :-) If I was real good with the timing, I usually got......"WOW".....MAN....THAT was FAST!!!!!" :-)) from the back seat! Every now and then, I'd get one that I could absolutely convince they had gone all the way around. I'd bring them back and we would hear about them telling everybody in sight how "fantastic" the roll rate ACTUALLY WAS in the T38!! :-) Naturally, sooner or later someone "clued" them in on it. Ah, I sure miss the good ole' days!!!! :-)) Dudley |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net... SNIP A three dimensional roll (barrel roll) is possible for a big jet, and has been done, even in the prototype 707. You are right about keeping the g positive all the way around. Both myself and several other demonstration pilots at one time or another have barreled airplanes with a glass of water on the instrument glare shield. I have done it in a D18 Twin Beech several times and Bob Hoover has done it in a Shrike Commander......many times. :-) Hi Mr. H, I didn't realize you'd performed this feat as well...too cool! Me, I have trouble sometimes just taking a sip of water from a squeeze bottle on cross country flights LOL. I recall seeing film of Mr. Hoover doing this with a golf ball hanging off the overhead and while POURING a glass of water from a pitcher. Not a drop of water gets spilled and golf ball never moves (the string is ram-rod straight) while the horizon is seen through the windscreen revolving through 360 degrees !! Amazing control... Regards, Jay Beckman Chandler, AZ PP-ASEL Still Nowhere to go but up! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jay Beckman" wrote in message news:K1Kdd.7927$SW3.788@fed1read01... "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ink.net... SNIP A three dimensional roll (barrel roll) is possible for a big jet, and has been done, even in the prototype 707. You are right about keeping the g positive all the way around. Both myself and several other demonstration pilots at one time or another have barreled airplanes with a glass of water on the instrument glare shield. I have done it in a D18 Twin Beech several times and Bob Hoover has done it in a Shrike Commander......many times. :-) Hi Mr. H, I didn't realize you'd performed this feat as well...too cool! Me, I have trouble sometimes just taking a sip of water from a squeeze bottle on cross country flights LOL. I recall seeing film of Mr. Hoover doing this with a golf ball hanging off the overhead and while POURING a glass of water from a pitcher. Not a drop of water gets spilled and golf ball never moves (the string is ram-rod straight) while the horizon is seen through the windscreen revolving through 360 degrees !! Amazing control... Regards, Jay Beckman Chandler, AZ PP-ASEL Still Nowhere to go but up! Hi Jay; Bob Hoover was one of the first charter members of the International Fighter Pilots Fellowship and is one of the premier demonstration pilots in the world. My little "feat" in the D18 was done more or less as an imitation of what Bob did in the Shrike just to see if we could do it . In all truth I should say it took a few tries to get it absolutely right, and I did come home one day with a wet flightsuit ;-) I would imagine Bob has managed to get a bit wet once or twice himself on occasion when he wasn't filming :-)) Dudley |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Is there a video you watched him doing this? Where can I see this feat?
"Jay Beckman" wrote in message news:K1Kdd.7927$SW3.788@fed1read01... "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ink.net... SNIP A three dimensional roll (barrel roll) is possible for a big jet, and has been done, even in the prototype 707. You are right about keeping the g positive all the way around. Both myself and several other demonstration pilots at one time or another have barreled airplanes with a glass of water on the instrument glare shield. I have done it in a D18 Twin Beech several times and Bob Hoover has done it in a Shrike Commander......many times. :-) Hi Mr. H, I didn't realize you'd performed this feat as well...too cool! Me, I have trouble sometimes just taking a sip of water from a squeeze bottle on cross country flights LOL. I recall seeing film of Mr. Hoover doing this with a golf ball hanging off the overhead and while POURING a glass of water from a pitcher. Not a drop of water gets spilled and golf ball never moves (the string is ram-rod straight) while the horizon is seen through the windscreen revolving through 360 degrees !! Amazing control... Regards, Jay Beckman Chandler, AZ PP-ASEL Still Nowhere to go but up! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
new theory of flight released Sept 2004 | Mark Oliver | Aerobatics | 1 | October 5th 04 10:20 PM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | June 1st 04 08:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | February 1st 04 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | September 1st 03 07:27 AM |