Lockheed Martin loops Hercules at Farnborough 2018 [Archive]

sandiego89

18th Jul 2018, 14:53

Did not some Marine Corps pilots reduce a new airframe to scrap doing something similar? Iirc, it was a gunship version, so the bill was steeper than for a normal transport.
Guess for a pilot, it is always tempting to try something similar, but stuff happens...

My bad. The Marines were not the guilty party, but rather the USAF.

And a departure from controlled flight into an unplanned, inverted position and an overstress of the aircraft, is much different than a properly planned, properly executed, aerobatic maneuver within the limits of the aircraft. One is planned, the mishap was not.

Danny42C

18th Jul 2018, 15:20

Saw still pics of a 707 being barrel-rolled by a Boeing test pilot donkey's years ago. As with the C-130 loop, if he kept a steady +1G all the way round, should cause no extra stress on the frame., surely? .... The Pax (if any) might not like it, much, though !

megan

18th Jul 2018, 16:02

Seems to be a trend here, when will we see the likes of A400, C-17, A380 or 777. ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uU7neiDJk0

bunta130

18th Jul 2018, 17:11

I'm guessing at +2.5 (limit was +3.25 ish from (dim) memory) at the bottom and initiation, with a tad over 1 at the top (although the C-130 is stressed for a smidge of negative...again -0.75 I think).

Loop is perfectly achievable within airframe limits, assuming aircraft was within Vno1 table..which it would be when empty of freight....

We used to use a bit of <1g when trying to get the cargo door locked up in preparation for wedge loads (and the UK C-130s only had a single hydraulic jack on that door).......as many will remember......and is the source of my username....

VX275

18th Jul 2018, 19:24

Memories of the C-130J Project Structures meetings at Marietta came flooding back, with a chill down my spine to boot, watching that video. It was with some justification (and a great deal of respect) that the Farnborough structures expert was given the nickname Rottweiler. She didn't half keep the Lockheed chaps (most of whom spoke with Yorkshire accents) honest.

Wycombe

18th Jul 2018, 19:37

By contrast, those of us at RIAT this year expecting the usual rolls and loop from the RSV (Italian Test Centre) C27J were somewhat disappointed.

Their commentator stated it wouldn't be seen any more at the start of the display on Sunday :-(

Martin the Martian

18th Jul 2018, 21:35

Yes, seemingly the C-27J did not carry them out as the Italian Air Force does not perform such manoeuvres as part of its normal flying ops. Made it a very dull routine. Anyone remeber the Dutch Fokker F.27 from some years back?

And a very impressed Martian here on watching the LM-100J.

josephfeatherweight

19th Jul 2018, 02:43

As with the C-130 loop, if he kept a steady +1G all the way round, should cause no extra stress on the frame.
Would love to know how to do that???

etudiant

19th Jul 2018, 02:59

And a departure from controlled flight into an unplanned, inverted position and an overstress of the aircraft, is much different than a properly planned, properly executed, aerobatic maneuver within the limits of the aircraft. One is planned, the mishap was not.

The crew was from a test squadron and presumably was wringing out the airframe when it departed controlled flight. There was planning here as well, but perhaps some unexpected flight characteristics surfaced.

Vzlet

19th Jul 2018, 12:00

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4553/38532184956_9b5a2488ef_z.jpg
Fokker F-27 Demo by Vzlet, on Flickr

KenV

19th Jul 2018, 12:02

Did not some Marine Corps pilots reduce a new airframe to scrap doing something similar? Iirc, it was a gunship version, USMC does not operate a gunship version of the Herc. USMC does have the Harvest Hawk weapons kit which they can attach to C-130, V-22 and other airframes, and while this kit does weaponize their tanker/transports, it does not really turn them into a true gunship.

The mishap bird was a USAF bird undergoing testing for high slideslip angles. The pilot exceeded the slideslip angle and the was slow in applying corrections and then put in the the wrong correction. It was not a stunt gone awry.

DaveReidUK

19th Jul 2018, 21:25

Watch from 6:52

There's also a neat trick at 12:14 where he lifts the nosewheel while stationary on the runway.

Capn Bloggs

20th Jul 2018, 04:46

As with the C-130 loop, if he kept a steady +1G all the way round, should cause no extra stress on the frame., surely? .... The Pax (if any) might not like it, much, though !
If there are any non-pilots reading this, it is impossible to do any looping or barrel-rolling manoeuvre and use a max of 1g.

CONSO

20th Jul 2018, 05:35

If there are any non-pilots reading this, it is impossible to do any looping or barrel-rolling manoeuvre and use a max of 1g.

This SLF calls bupucky- Bob Hoover routinely did 1 g loops in a rockwell aerocommander, and videos of him doing it while pouring a glass of water during the process are all over the internet- and have been for years. In fact he normally did a whole loop routine with both engines out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9pvG_ZSnCc re barrell roll and i g loop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7R7jZmliGc

And tex johnson did a 1 g barrel roll in a 707 according to one of the test engineers who was knelling on the floor and taking pics out the window.

Of course one may not be able to do it in your microsoft simulator...

josephfeatherweight

20th Jul 2018, 05:51

Bob Hoover routinely did 1 g loops in a rockwell aerocommander
No, he didn't, or he wouldn't have pitched up at all...
He would have used "a bit more than 1g".
Hence my earlier query regarding how to do a 1g loop - it's not possible.
I wouldn't be throwing around "microsoft simulator" comments with the bunkum you just sprouted...

chopper2004

20th Jul 2018, 08:52

https://airinsight.com/tag/c-130/

I am here all week at the show, thus here are my photos from wednesday of the LM-100J displaying,

cheers

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/852/42618594585_858bdcdd73_k.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/843/41714864010_e73eec8073_k.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1807/42618591585_77aea83bfd_k.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/915/42618589475_e76132783b_k.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/919/42618588145_21fe5e92a8_k.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1808/42618586305_e0678aa596_k.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1801/28636204307_5c5baddaef_k.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/939/28636197807_2310fe79fa_k.jpg

chevvron

20th Jul 2018, 10:52

Was a chandelle not a loop!

wub

20th Jul 2018, 12:00

Wow, your sensor needs a serious clean!

DaveReidUK

20th Jul 2018, 13:30

If you could perform a loop without pulling any more G than you experience when flying straight and level, then the world's air forces could save themselves a fortune by not bothering with all those expensive, cumbersome G-suits.

Herod

20th Jul 2018, 19:35

CONSO. You do not have any idea of the (significant) difference between a loop and a barrel roll. I have tremendous respect for Bob Hoover, and what he could do with that aeroplane. However, his barrel rolls, like those of Tex in the 707, were not 1g, and no loop can ever be.

richardthethird

20th Jul 2018, 20:24

Loving the thread, folks! Keep it up.

CONSO. Write a book!

dook

20th Jul 2018, 20:34

Now there's an idea CONSO.

It would be essential reading as an introduction to children into the laws of physics.

Herod

20th Jul 2018, 21:02

"Ye cannae change the laws of physics, Cap't" (Scottie). Read Newton's First and Second Laws of Motion.

typerated

20th Jul 2018, 23:47

Obviously Conso know nothing but..

watching Bob's video

All you can really say is there is positive G at the top and more than +1 at the bottom!

SASless

21st Jul 2018, 03:00

Helicopters get into the act as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC2E8RJE3Jo

DaveReidUK

21st Jul 2018, 11:22

Not a bad intro to the loop, from someone who one would hope knows a thing or two about how to perform one:

iHBoFTmGLGY

CONSO

21st Jul 2018, 13:33

What are you talking about?

https://aircombat.com/about/

dook

21st Jul 2018, 15:39

LOMCEVAK

21st Jul 2018, 16:48

I have followed this thread with interest regarding large aeroplanes flying aerobatic manoeuvres but also with some incredulity over the arguments regarding the 'g' used. If I may feed in some food for thought ...

To a pilot, 'g' is load factor = Lift/Weight. Therefore, if an aeroplane is flying at '1g' Lift=Weight. However, to a physicist, an object subject to 1g has an acceleration in a specified direction of 9.81m/sec2. Therefore, he/she would view an aircraft in straight and level, constant speed flight as being at 0g along all three axes. An accelerometer fitted to an aircraft to measure 'g' should, to a physicist, be calibrated to indicate 0g when level and static but, by convention and to be useful to a pilot as an indicator of load factor, it is calibrated to read +1.

Based on the above, I pose a question to those who have referred to a '1g' loop; what is your frame of reference? If it is 0g when straight and level then you could, if you had enough thrust, theoretically fly a loop with +1g indicated throughout.

For aircraft that have indications of longitudinal or lateral g, note that when at constant speed and under conditions of zero sideforce then the longitudinal and lateral 'g' respectively are both zero and when accelerating/decelerating and sideslipping these are true linear acceleration values.

CONSO

21st Jul 2018, 17:08

Let me tell you something CONSO.

In my flying career I have won three aerobatic competitions, one of them a major international.
Let me tell you something else - you exude the same substances from both ends of your body.

Perhaps this thread can now be closed.

By the way it was AFTER I finished typing the following ( despite several local interruptions ) and went back to check the thread I found the immediately preceeding post. which essentially says the same thing . . .

What we have here is a failure to clearly communicate as to frame o reference My comments did NOT adequately explain that MY reference to 1 G was relative to the airplane, not the ' center ' of the earth or universe. Thus my mention of lack of or NO visual cues re the passenger ( or improbably- the pilot ) to determine the attitude of the airplane reference to the earth. 2nd miss-or incomplete communication has to do with how perfect is perfect re 1 G , ie 1.0 G or 1.00000 G. IOW using the airplane as a reference frame, 1 G downwards from head to butt ( in level flight ) is also technically 1 G aligned with the ' center ' of earth disregarding perfect arcs relative to earth surface, large deposits of iron ore, etc. With appropriate radius climb / turn at a specific speed- the 1 G vector airplane reference can still be from head to toe, etc. BUT relative to the universe or earth frame it is other than 1 g. , etc. which is why I used the term NET G as affects the passenger or pilot in a previous post..

BY the way Tex in his own words called his manuver a chandelle- not a ' barrel ' roll- and in some his not widely pubished comments indirectly referred to doin the same manuver in virtuall/y every plane h had been involved wih as a test pilot, eg B52, etc. And for those who want to believe that over lake washington was the first time he had done that, I have this neat floating bridge bridge for sale currently in cold storage in Hood Canal . Tex lived a long time by NOT being stupid or taking dumb risks with a new designed airplane NOT designed or stressed for aerobatics.

WE return you now to the game of ' whats YOUR reference frame ' for gravity ..

Trumpet_trousers

21st Jul 2018, 17:13

Good evening Landlord.... I’ll take a pint of what he’s drinking, and one of his spliffs too please....

dook

21st Jul 2018, 17:21

To a pilot, 'g' is load factor = Lift/Weight. Therefore, if an aeroplane is flying at '1g' Lift=Weight. However, to a physicist, an object subject to 1g has an acceleration in a specified direction of 9.81m/sec2. Therefore, he/she would view an aircraft in straight and level, constant speed flight as being at 0g along all three axes. An accelerometer fitted to an aircraft to measure 'g' should, to a physicist, be calibrated to indicate 0g when level and static but, by convention and to be useful to a pilot as an indicator of load factor, it is calibrated to read +1.
To a pilot, 'g' is load factor = Lift/Weight. Therefore, if an aeroplane is flying at '1g' Lift=Weight. However, to a physicist, an object subject to 1g has an acceleration in a specified direction of 9.81m/sec2. Therefore, he/she would view an aircraft in straight and level, constant speed flight as being at 0g along all three axes. An accelerometer fitted to an aircraft to measure 'g' should, to a physicist, be calibrated to indicate 0g when level and static but, by convention and to be useful to a pilot as an indicator of load factor, it is calibrated to read +1.

We might return to Sir Isaac. A derivation of his second law of motion is F=Ma.

F = force
M = mass (quantity of matter per unit volume.
a = acceleration (rate of change of velocity)

Thus: for a given mass and g being gravitational acceleration the derived force is called weight.

Therefore if g were zero the aeroplane would be weightless.

treadigraph

21st Jul 2018, 17:49

BY the way Tex in his own words called his manuver a chandelle- not a ' barrel ' roll

In my copy of his autobiography he describes flying a chandelle followed by two barrel rolls.

CONSO

21st Jul 2018, 18:42

In my copy of his autobiography he describes flying a chandelle followed by two barrel rolls.

Interesting- in technical terms a chandelle is a climbing turn nomally to change direction by 180 degrees. yet a video shows no 180 degree change in direction but more like 30 or 40 degrees. Of course he may be referring to the fact that AFTER the first Roll- he did change direction about 180 degrees to fly back over the hydroplane course and repeat the " roll" . What is not well known were the comments I heard personally about 15 -20 years later by/from the then young boeing pilot flying chase that day - and perhaps there may be some possible film from the then used gun cameras since on that day the dash 80 was normally on a scheduled flight test. The chase pilot did NOT know of tex plans and was simply flying quite aways back in trail to avoid distraction as tex was to fly low over the hydro race course. His normal reaction was to follow the dash 80 in all positions. So as Tex rolled -chase simply followed and chase realized all of a sudden he ( chase) was low, relatively slow, and upside down- and if the dash 80 came unglued he chase could not probably avoid a collision or safely eject - so he keyed mike and started to call mayday - tex said firmly shut up kid !- after landing, the feds were a bit upset and insisted that chase HAD to have known what tex was going to do- which of course was verboten. What saved chase was the then used tape recordings . . .

DaveReidUK

21st Jul 2018, 18:43

We might return to Sir Isaac. A derivation of his second law of motion is F=Ma.

F = force
M = mass (quantity of matter per unit volume.
a = acceleration (rate of change of velocity)

Thus: for a given mass and g being gravitational acceleration the derived force is called weight.

Therefore if g were zero the aeroplane would be weightless.

Actually, as alluded to by a previous poster, defining straight and level flight as 1g is just a convention.

When I was first studying aeromechanics some 40+ years ago, in the UK, the convention on this side of the water was to define S+L flight as 0g. Apart from anything else, that makes concepts like "stick force per g" much more intuitive, since of course stick force in straight and level flight is zero.

We were, however cautioned that other less enlightened nations used the 1g convention, so we should be prepared to meet that in our careers and now, like many other transatlantic imports, it's pretty well universal.

But to return to the topic - whichever convention you choose, the proposition that you can fly a loop while pulling no more g than in level flight is clearly ludicrous.

dook

21st Jul 2018, 19:30

When I was first studying aeromechanics some 40+ years ago, in the UK, the convention on this side of the water was to define S+L flight as 0g.

And ten years before that when I did my flying training, the RAF Central Flying School used +1g, and it makes "stick force per g" no less intuitive. Stick force in straight and level flight is, of course, zero only if the aeroplane is correctly trimmed.

I taught university aeronautics for some years and +1g was a teaching requirement.

So what g am I experiencing sat here on my sofa ?

Your turn.....

LOMCEVAK

21st Jul 2018, 20:36

The issue here is that 'g' has several meanings. If we keep it simple in the context of manoeuvring aeroplanes and say that 'g' is load factor (Lift/Weight) which is also what it says on the g meter in the cockpit then discussions on this thread become clearer for all who fly.

Dook,

With respect to sitting on your sofa, how are you defining g? I would say that the sofa is exerting an upwards force on your posterior that is equal and opposite to your weight, which is your mass in kgs x g, with g being 9.81 m/sec2.

dook

21st Jul 2018, 21:26

…..which is your mass in kgs x g, with g being 9.81 m/sec2.

Precisely ! …….+1g.

In my court it's lbs and 32 ft/sec squared. Non of this metric crap.

However, I get extremely irritated by ignorant people who use the phrase "g force".

josephfeatherweight

21st Jul 2018, 23:05

CONSO

22nd Jul 2018, 01:09

If you choose to use the "0g" reference for S+L, then how do you reference the equivalent "weightless G" where an object (or your body) "floats weightlessly" within a space?? (eg the cockpit/cabin) - is that then referred to -1g??
Absurdity...

NO ITS ZERO G.. As in the space station which is continually falling towards the earth in an appropriate circular path. Or in the ' vomit comet " parabolic flight path of the NASA 707 which temporarily matches the circular flight path which results in the outward g vector matching the to center of the earth vector known as + i G- sort of like flying in an outward ( cockpit ) reference LOOP !!! ARRRRRGGHHHHHHH !

CONSO

22nd Jul 2018, 01:16

So what g am I experiencing sat here on my sofa ?

Absent a significant amount of posterior propulsion in the vertical plane, and assuming no other movements, convention would rate you at 1 G..:cool:

Capn Bloggs

22nd Jul 2018, 01:20

Conso, have you ever actually flown a loop (ie started and ended at the same altitude), as a pilot?

megan

22nd Jul 2018, 02:42

Tex in his own words called his manuver a chandelle- not a ' barrel ' roll Rather weird chandelle. Tex said, page 217, "During the two barrel rolls the airplane never knew it was inverted" Tex lived a long time by NOT being stupid or taking dumb risks with a new designed airplane NOT designed or stressed for aerobatics Tex lived a long life because he knew what he was doing, aka, you can do aerobatics in an aircraft not designed for same if you have the knowledge and skill. Bob Hoover in the Aero Commander and Sabreliner was doing the same, aerobatics in aircraft not designed for same. Very much doubt the B-47 was designed for aerobatics, yet it was used in a toss bombing role, half loop and roll off the top. Of course it took a toll on the airframe eventually.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/610x470/707_proto_over_sea_610x470_86ad2c4cbf7eab5b8381a55eee0c67906 6e96864.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzY8LNKPeEk

A longer vid on the B-47 maneuver capability research

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cIgTAtj4E4

CONSO

22nd Jul 2018, 05:14

Conso, have you ever actually flown a loop (ie started and ended at the same altitude), as a pilot?

Does the term SLF ring a bell? But with an instructor sjtting alongside and with a bit of cheating, I have done a loop entering at about 220 mph and pulling about 2.5 to 3 Gs and starting to lose periphial vision and do not know the altitude at level out since there was also a half roll involved after going over the top as I concentrated on lining up a gunsight pic on the ' enemy' also flying an SIA marchetti - see Aircombat USA as it was done over 20 years ago. Still have a copy of the video after transferring to CD... that does NOT make me a pilot nor an expert on dogfight tactics . High and low yo yo and a hammerhead stall also involved when I lost one round . But a lot of fun !!

But that has zip to do with defining airplane ref g's versus world ref g's and NO attempts to do a 1 g roll.

CONSO

22nd Jul 2018, 05:32

Rather weird chandelle. Tex said, page 217, "During the two barrel rolls the airplane never knew it was inverted"
And in person he said

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=Ra_khhzuFlE

+++

Rather weird chandelle. Tex said, page 217, "During the two barrel rolls the airplane never knew it was inverted"Tex lived a long life because he knew what he was doing, aka, you can do aerobatics in an aircraft not designed for same if you have the knowledge and skill. Bob Hoover in the Aero Commander and Sabreliner was doing the same, aerobatics in aircraft not designed for same. Very much doubt the B-47 was designed for aerobatics, yet it was used in a toss bombing role, half loop and roll off the top. Of course it took a toll on the airframe eventually.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/610x470/707_proto_over_sea_610x470_86ad2c4cbf7eab5b8381a55eee0c67906 6e96864.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzY8LNKPeEk

A longer vid on the B-47 maneuver capability research

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cIgTAtj4E4

megan

22nd Jul 2018, 05:33

Absent a significant amount of posterior propulsion in the vertical plane, and assuming no other movements, convention would rate you at 1 G CONSO, flying straight and level inverted (hanging in the straps) what "g" would I be experiencing, minus one, zero, plus one? :E

While Tex said "chandelle" in the clip, the fact is, it was not a chandelle, and the video in the clip is proof of that, as is the famous photograph. Tex mis-spoke in the video. The FAA in fact require a pilot to perform a chandelle for licensing purposes, none of those Pipers and Cessnas are aerobatic, so performance of your definition of "chandelle" would be illegal, but they perform the manoeuvre day after day. Page 5 here,

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/11_afh_ch9.pdf

Capn Bloggs

22nd Jul 2018, 05:37

I thought so. You're the "microsoft simmer", not me. 1g loops are impossible.

CONSO

22nd Jul 2018, 05:49

I thought so. You're the "microsoft simmer", not me. 1g loops are impossible.

never have tried or used the microsquish simmer- I use an apple and have for way to many decades. And about 25 years ago - apple had a simple sim- which I tried once and went on to do other things . So what ref do you use for the ' impossible ' 1 G - in the cockpit g meter or in the real world ? and exactly 1.00000 G or a nominal 1 G ? re airplane /cockpit ref? or the real world ref with vector to center of earth ?

DaveReidUK

22nd Jul 2018, 06:37

And ten years before that when I did my flying training, the RAF Central Flying School used +1g, and it makes "stick force per g" no less intuitive. Stick force in straight and level flight is, of course, zero only if the aeroplane is correctly trimmed.

Well, obviously. :ugh:

Sorry, I didn't think that in a professional forum that would need saying ...

We could argue all day about whether "stick force per g" or "stick force per (g-1)" is more intuitive. Let's not :O

My aeromechanics lecturer was Polish, by the way, maybe it's an Eastern European convention that the RAF was keen to avoid.

If you choose to use the "0g" reference for S+L, then how do you reference the equivalent "weightless G" where an object (or your body) "floats weightlessly" within a space?? (eg the cockpit/cabin) - is that then referred to -1g??

Absurdity...

No, not absurd, just a different convention. You might want to look up the meaning of that latter word.

Anyway, as I've already acknowledged, it's a convention that has completely died out (a bit like the British English definition of "billion") now that the USA has taken over the world. :O

dook

22nd Jul 2018, 08:32

Sorry, I didn't think that in a professional forum that would need saying …

Big mistake Mr. Reid - this is PPRuNE…...

SASless

22nd Jul 2018, 12:08

Dave old lad.....do keep up please.

We speak of “Trillions” especially when we speak of our Federal government’s spending habits.....as it likes to spend far more than it has in its Purse each year.

Pilots can relate to that kind of spending habit!

CONSO

22nd Jul 2018, 14:53

Jeeze megan - please read my posts again and listen to the link I initially posted re tex- in which I simply commented that in his own words, HE called it a chandelle- and I mentioned in that same post it was a barrell role. I latet commented that it was NOT a chandelle and thattex may have been referring to the turning around in a short distance - chandelle - to come back over the race course. Yet you seem to claim I did NOT properly define a chandelle ??

so performance of your definition of "chandelle" would be illegal, but they perform the manoeuvre day after day. Page 5 here,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=Ra_khhzuFlE

its a bit late to explain to Tex that he used the wrong definition - which I simply mentioned that In his own words is what he said and posted the proof re the video

Why not give it a rest ????

CONSO, flying straight and level inverted (hanging in the straps) what "g" would I be experiencing, minus one, zero, plus one? :E

The definition of 1 G still applies whether you are standing on your head or your feet reference to the earth - it that case you are simply ' on your head ' at 1 G . . . convention would be PLUS one g in straight and level upside down flight even though your internal reference frame would show MINUS one- - context and refderence frame matters !!

While Tex said "chandelle" in the clip, the fact is, it was not a chandelle, and the video in the clip is proof of that, as is the famous photograph. Tex mis-spoke in the video.

THATS WHAT I SAID !!!

The FAA in fact require a pilot to perform a chandelle for licensing purposes, none of those Pipers and Cessnas are aerobatic, so performance of your definition of "chandelle" would be illegal, but they perform the manoeuvre day after day. Page 5 here,

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/11_afh_ch9.pdf

Herod

22nd Jul 2018, 17:03

CONSO, post # [QUOTE] I have done a loop entering at about 220 mph and pulling about 2.5 to 3 G/QUOTE]

Why not 1g, as you suggest?

CONSO

22nd Jul 2018, 18:48

CONSO, post # [QUOTE] I have done a loop entering at about 220 mph and pulling about 2.5 to 3 G/QUOTE]

Why not 1g, as you suggest?

Please read my previous posts on the subject re ' REAL combat\ ' issues as to why a REAL pilot in combat is NOT usually concerned with fine control needed to accomplish a perfect 1 G. And in my case I believe I explained that was NOT my concern at the time- rather I was trying such as to " shoot down " via ' gunsight " my opponent in mock combat fights as provided by ' combat USA " check their website !! such as

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S7M8IYizK4 not me but typical

https://vimeo.com/114054540

etc
Difference is my flight with them was a few years after they started - late 80's early 90's but current or later videos are essentially the same .

TBM-Legend

22nd Jul 2018, 20:14

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2Flmaeronautics%2Freview%2F2 80210858%2F1e3b1ef1ca&h=AT0pMrDMuaUld0oO3LzstDZmrUm3CG-YhFehPrElohDEesPs7Rpu8hZrE-9aHoPU_0GcqRgChEP1BzdDxQ70JuXjVX23jt_9FrXgrM0ajYVcysntqyFfCi Oy_ZOKCip0mhWa480xGJzTVdpqSNI-50F6ofJv41qa3ZUeL0yzbbz0BEdaWwTYjDs

BEagle

22nd Jul 2018, 21:29

CONSO, we have a saying in the UK - "When you're in a hole, stop digging!"

Your nonsense about +1G looping manoeuvres is frankly risible.

'REAL' combat, my arse. You simply haven't a clue about the principles of flight, so to avoid embarrassing yourself yet further with your ignorance, please refrain from posting further rubbish about this subject.

SASless

22nd Jul 2018, 22:23

Beags....don't sugarcoat it....tell us what you are really thinking will you!:ok:

megan

23rd Jul 2018, 00:22

CONSO, what you said was,
BY the way Tex in his own words called his manuver a chandelle- not a ' barrel ' roll- and in some his not widely pubished comments indirectly referred to doin the same manuver in virtuall/y every plane h had been involved wih as a test pilot, eg B52, etc. And for those who want to believe that over lake washington was the first time he had done that, I have this neat floating bridge bridge for sale currently in cold storage in Hood Canal . Tex lived a long time by NOT being stupid or taking dumb risks with a new designed airplane NOT designed or stressed for aerobatics.What Tex wrote,The weather on Gold Cup day was impeccable. My ﬂight crew included Jim Gannett, copilot, and Bell Whitehead, test engineer. We completed our test over the Olympic Peninsula, and as I tumed to a 90-degree heading for Lake Washington, I told Jim, “I’m going to roll this bird over the Gold Cup course.”

Jim’s head snapped around, his eyes wide, his mouth slightly open in surprise. “They’re liable to ﬁre you." “Maybe,” I said, “but I don't think so. There are more than two hundred thousand spectators. Everyone in the airplane and airline business in the world is here. This is the airplane that's going to dominate the industry for forty years. We’re going to get their attention and make this airplane famous.” I pulled the nose up and executed a leisurely climbing left barrel roll, and then began the descent to Lake Washington.

I observed the Blue Angels’ last pass and their departure for Sand Point Airport four miles north of the racecourse. Approaching from southwest of the lake on a northeast heading, speed 490 mph, altitude 200 feet, we passed over the racecourse, pulled up in a left chandelle, pulling 3.5 G in the vertically banked left tum to 1,500 feet altitude.

Proceeding on a southwest heading in a shallow dive across the racecourse to 300 feet altitude, speed 490 mph, I established a 35-degree climb and released the back pressure. The airplane was climbing at 1 G, the same as level ﬂight. I applied full left roll control and, as the airplane approached the inverted position, applied slight back pressure, bringing the nose down slightly to maintain 1 G, continually holding full left roll control. The roll was completed in level ﬂight at 1,500 feet altitude.

Executing a 180-degree nose-down turn, we again passed over the racecourse at 490 mph and executed the second climbing roll. During the two barrel rolls the airplane never knew it was inverted. The entire roll maneuver was executed at 1 G, the same gravity force as at level ﬂight. Whitehead, the test engineer, knelt by a passenger cabin window and snapped the today-famous photo of the Dash 80 inverted over the Gold Cup course.Did he do an aerobatic manoeuvre in a non aerobatic aircraft, your post claims he wouldn't be so stupid? Is it safe to assume that bridge is no longer for sale? Would hate to miss a bargain.

CONSO

23rd Jul 2018, 05:52

CONSO, what you said was,
What Tex wrote,Did he do an aerobatic manoeuvre in a non aerobatic aircraft, your post claims he wouldn't be so stupid? Is it safe to assume that bridge is no longer for sale? Would hate to miss a bargain.

Golly - he did a 1 G roll AND a chandelle as I earlier postulated re his verbal comments - and again- for those who believe it was HIS first time in the 707- I still have a bridge for sale . Thanks for the information - Tex was a bit peeved about missing the chance to fly the X-1 series -later flown by a guy named yeager . .In those days, flight data was usually gathered by onboard oscilliograph recorders for many variables, or instrumentation type tape recorders ( ampex as I recall ) Around 1961- 62 I happened to know a few types who were involved in instrumentation.- and who were aware of certain data traces . . . Tex at that time was in an executive position on a project called dynasoar- launching a shuttle like small airplane onboard a titan rocket- program was cancelled around 63-64 from memory and tex was moved to a different office - someone screwed up his large mounted ' fish' in the mover and EVERYONE heard about about it - ...

Pontius Navigator

23rd Jul 2018, 07:14

What Tex failed to mention was the G during the transition from S&L at 490 mph and a straight climb at 35 deg to the horizontal and 490 mph. He had previously pulled 3.5g so it is fair to say he pulled a similar g entering that manoeuvre.

etudiant

23rd Jul 2018, 07:35

Just me, but I find this impressive: "pulling 3.5 G in the vertically banked left tum to 1,500 feet altitude"

dook

23rd Jul 2018, 16:20

Is anyone else tired of this thread ?

josephfeatherweight

23rd Jul 2018, 17:09

Nup - thread of the year, for all the belly laughs I’ve had reading CONSO’s contributions to aeronautical theory.

megan

24th Jul 2018, 00:18

for those who believe it was HIS first time in the 707 Since this event took place on August 7, 1955 Tex still had to wait a while before strapping into a 707 which first flew on December 20, 1957. So, yes we know it wasn't the first time he flew a 707. Is anyone else tired of this thread No, haven't had so many laughs for years.

CONSO

24th Jul 2018, 02:08

Since this event took place on August 7, 1955 Tex still had to wait a while before strapping into a 707 which first flew on December 20, 1957. So, yes we know it wasn't the first time he flew a 707. No, haven't had so many laughs for years.

Picky picky - technically it was known as the 367 dash-80- which first flew in July -1954. If thats the best you can do- it shows a lack of a reasonable response

here are a few factoids
https://www.boeing.com/history/products/707.page
The Dash 80 prototype led to the commercial 707 and the military KC-135 tanker (https://www.boeing.com/history/products/kc-135-stratotanker.page). Both planes shared the basic design of the Dash 80 but were very different airplanes, neither one being a derivative of the other. One great difference was in the width and length of the fuselage. Airlines wanted the 707 fuselage to be 4 inches (2.5 centimeters) wider than the tanker’s. Its width and the 100-foot length (30.5-meter) made it the largest passenger cabin in the air. Placement of its more than 100 windows allowed airlines to rearrange seats. Location of passenger doors on the left side, at the front and at the rear of the cabin, became standard for subsequent Boeing jets. The exteriors of the 707 and its competitor, the DC-8 (https://www.boeing.com/history/products/dc-8.page), were almost identical, but the 707 wing had more sweepback, so it could fly about 20 mph (32 kph) faster.

Have a nicde day ;)