Not sure you could get roll/yaw coupling in a F104 LM. More like a dart than an aeroplane!:ok:

In a loop or a roll or a turn, what's the difference between centrifugal force and centripetal force; or are they the same?

On the one occasion I flew it, Newt, I was briefed carefully on max roll rate at high incidence.

"....watch the china, alpha..." ;)

SOSL
Centripetal force is that required to keep an object moving in a circle, in an Inertial Reference Frame,i.e. seen from outside the aircraft. It acts towards the centre of the circle, and is usually generated by a component of lift (Bona mates can VIFF too).

Centrifugal force is that experienced by the crew, who are accelerating and thus in a non-inertial reference frame. Newton's Laws do not work directly in non-inertial reference frames (Einstein's do). This force acts outwards.

Or, in a thousand words....
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/centrifugal_force.png

There are only three forces acting on an aircraft in flight. Thrust, weight and total reaction. Lift and drag are just 'lies told to children'. They are artificially defined components of total reaction (a much more valid and useful concept). Of course, take away thrust and there are only two.

....and I presume you believe that lift, sorry total reaction, is generated because of the venturi effect between a wing upper surface and the free stream air above it. :E

Now then - I know that even an elephant can fly

....seen Dumbo......?

Arthur:

1 Aircrew ARE children. Groundcrew, in my experience, have always referred to the aircrew crewroom as the 'playpen'. Quoth the sign-in desk Sergeant, "What have the children done NOW?".

2 Since the use of physics in this case is to explain, then pontificating about total reaction is worse than useless if it doesn't lead to understanding.

3 Most reference data is provided as separate lift and drag data, so reassembling it into total reaction is inefficient.

4 Acting all superior about it ("lies") does nothing for the reputation of physicists as people worth listening to.

newt - it's all about B over A ratio and the 104 has a lot of one and hardly any of the other, so you could get into trouble more easily in a 104 than in most aircraft. That is unless you are a god like you and me mate! :E;)

The clean Jaguar spinning (tumbling more like:eek:) video was a goodie - I think it went unstable in all 3 axes at the same alpha, 17 IIRC.

Don't talk about newt like that;)

And you and I know different:O;

About newt yeah jindy! :E

Oh no you don't:ok:


And I really thought you guys were being nice to me these days:{

How do flies land inverted on a ceiling?!
 

teeteringhead....here is a link regardin' your flyin' fly question...cool!
BBC - Bang Goes the Theory - Ask Yan - How does a fly turn upside down to land on a ceiling?
:)

The real answer is that all flys are really QFIs in the afterlife still looking for an answer to the question....

The real answer is ... Nobody knows!:confused::confused::confused:

But, Newt, I do of course. :p

The biggest problem in the 104 (apart from no lift) was actually negative g and a high roll rate. Bugging out of a fight was always interesting.

Just make sure you never have to bug out mate! ;)

How you doing T?

Good, still flying. :)

Murdock - many thanks, that's a brilliant piece of film, but to me it seemed he (or possibly she) was still "wingborne" when the landing spot was grabbed.......:confused:

And as for ... then they aren't flies, they are "walks"! Tata boom!

Lucky you ktk and good on you. Ageism struck with me sadly.