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

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news:2007061101084716807-dhenriques@rcncom...

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

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

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

PPL-A (Canada) writes:

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

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

writes:

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

My post is based on them.

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

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

A simple example would suffice.

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

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

-robert, CFII

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Bob Moore writes:


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


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

How the hell would you know?

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


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



Bertie



ROFL. Hahaha. RESTART! RESTART!!!!

PPL-A (Canada) writes:

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

And the absence of data is still there.

Mxsmanic wrote:

JB writes:


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

He's not wasting my time.

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