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

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


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news:2007061123263150073-dhenriques@rcncom...
Certainly not. If you think you cannot roll the wings of an aircraft, and
remain in total control of the g loading, you are totally incorrect.

Not sure what you mean here as your comment refers to me or what I have
said, but I can assure you that you most certainly CAN roll an airplane
and maintain complete control of the g. If a pilot can't do this, I would
strongly suggest that rolling the airplane not be attempted :-)

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

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



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

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

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...
"Maxwell" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...

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




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

Yeah right..


No, you mean yeah, correct.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news:2007061123501111272-dhenriques@rcncom...
On 2007-06-11 23:36:31 -0400, "Maxwell" said:


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

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


Simple question. Can you or can you not.

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

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

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

F--

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


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...
"Maxwell" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.130...

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




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

Yeah right..


No, you mean yeah, correct.


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


Bertie

"Maxwell" wrote in
:


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news:2007061123501111272-dhenriques@rcncom...
On 2007-06-11 23:36:31 -0400, "Maxwell" said:


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

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


Simple question. Can you or can you not.


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


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Erik writes:

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

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

Oow! Kookthrets!


God I luv usenet.

I believe our pet kook might be slowly arriving at the realisation
that he isn't the flavour of the hour, the day, the week or the year.
Wet bus tickets at ten yards !

On Jun 11, 3:56 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
PPL-A (Canada) writes:
Again ... the answer remains the same ... neck straight ... not bent.

And the absence of data is still there.

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

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

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

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

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

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



J.

Snowbird writes:

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

Neither do aircraft.

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

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

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

No, that results in target fixation, and accidents.

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

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

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

This is a VFR pilot?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maxwell writes:

No it won't, and yes you can.

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