Acrobatics in a Kingair?
Squawk clearly knows the difference between AOA and pitch. What frustrated Squarker is that someone said that 60 degrees pitch wasn't aerobatic and Squarker disagrees. Let's be serious, 60 deg AOA or 60 deg pitch are pretty serious angles and quite obviously not quite in the ordinary flight envelope of most aircraft. Squarker thinks that someone who knows him personally was attempting to have a dig over this.
Got some video of an SU-30 somewhere. This link isn't it but gives some idea of what the aircraft is capable of:
http://www.crazyaviation.com/movies/CA_SU-30.wmv
Anyway, the other piece of footage shows an AoA of roughly 120-130 degrees sustained for up to 10 seconds. It uses thrust vectoring and a whole lot of other fancy stuff including canards. It's not really relevant to the discussion at hand but it's worth watching anyway!
The one thing the Soviets got right was their aerodynamics. SU-27, MiG-29 and on were, and still are, far superior to anything the US had or has. Not sure how the F-22 etc. will compare.
http://www.crazyaviation.com/movies/CA_SU-30.wmv
Anyway, the other piece of footage shows an AoA of roughly 120-130 degrees sustained for up to 10 seconds. It uses thrust vectoring and a whole lot of other fancy stuff including canards. It's not really relevant to the discussion at hand but it's worth watching anyway!
The one thing the Soviets got right was their aerodynamics. SU-27, MiG-29 and on were, and still are, far superior to anything the US had or has. Not sure how the F-22 etc. will compare.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Footlights College, Oxbridge
Age: 47
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Cloud Basher
Next someone will be arguing that an aircraft stall is caused by lack of air speed
Originally Posted by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower
Any pilot that does not know that should be driving a taxi.
This squawk individual probably thinks he's referring to 60deg Angle of Bank in these ramblings.
As for Grollo being an RFDS pilot..... say WHAT???
Never before have so many ignorant tossers gathered on one thread. Apart from me, of course.
Yeah, I was pulling someone's leg.
Just frustrated that AoA, AOB, Pitch and Coanda are terms bandied around seemingly interfrastically around here.
Just frustrated that AoA, AOB, Pitch and Coanda are terms bandied around seemingly interfrastically around here.
What frustrated Squarker is that someone said that 60 degrees pitch wasn't aerobatic and Squarker disagrees.
The old CAR's or maybe even ANR's used to define aerobatic maneouvre as one were pitch exceeded 60 degrees Or AoB in excess of 60 degrees.
Psychophysiological entity
I have always been a great believer in knowing your airplane. There is a distinct difference between nudging at the edge of the envelope to see how it really handles, and carelessly stressing the structure just for the hell of it.
The maneuvers described don't seem very dramatic to me so it has to be the way in which they were carried out. Bob Hover wouldn't end up with a bill for megga $'s after his breath-taking demonstrations. The guy that rolled the prototype 707 really didn't think that it was that big-of-a-deal.
Here, I know for certain that the BAC 1-11 and the Fokker lookalike have been rolled. All done without too many stresses and strains.
I have taken what was called ‘violent avoiding action' to miss something one day, and the 1-11 went past 90 degrees of bank. In fact, just for a moment, I considered carrying on with the roll as the smoothest way out of the situation. There was a socking great tool box on the floor, and it didn't budge. It was a strange thing, but when we were invited to try fast rolls during training (all done in the real airplane in those days) no-one that I knew, really pulled it round very fast. Fright is a funny thing.
I have also been in a storm for what seemed an eternity. Several time the horizon bar disappeared behind the top or the bottom mask. I wouldn't have expected the engines to all fail. Bl00dy glad they didn't, things were tough enough already.
I have also, in clear air over the Alps, gone down four or five huge drops of 1,000 feet each. It was like going down concrete steps. My jacket swung on its hook and almost reached the ceiling. So much for maintaining positive g. (There was a T-storm, well below us, 12NM to the West of our track.)
I think the point about gyroscopic effect causing unacceptable bearing loads, is the most lightly scenario. It still seems an extraordinary bill for just throwing the airplane around. Was there any airframe distortion? cos if not, it would seem that the engines/gearboxes are a tad vulnerable.
The maneuvers described don't seem very dramatic to me so it has to be the way in which they were carried out. Bob Hover wouldn't end up with a bill for megga $'s after his breath-taking demonstrations. The guy that rolled the prototype 707 really didn't think that it was that big-of-a-deal.
Here, I know for certain that the BAC 1-11 and the Fokker lookalike have been rolled. All done without too many stresses and strains.
I have taken what was called ‘violent avoiding action' to miss something one day, and the 1-11 went past 90 degrees of bank. In fact, just for a moment, I considered carrying on with the roll as the smoothest way out of the situation. There was a socking great tool box on the floor, and it didn't budge. It was a strange thing, but when we were invited to try fast rolls during training (all done in the real airplane in those days) no-one that I knew, really pulled it round very fast. Fright is a funny thing.
I have also been in a storm for what seemed an eternity. Several time the horizon bar disappeared behind the top or the bottom mask. I wouldn't have expected the engines to all fail. Bl00dy glad they didn't, things were tough enough already.
I have also, in clear air over the Alps, gone down four or five huge drops of 1,000 feet each. It was like going down concrete steps. My jacket swung on its hook and almost reached the ceiling. So much for maintaining positive g. (There was a T-storm, well below us, 12NM to the West of our track.)
I think the point about gyroscopic effect causing unacceptable bearing loads, is the most lightly scenario. It still seems an extraordinary bill for just throwing the airplane around. Was there any airframe distortion? cos if not, it would seem that the engines/gearboxes are a tad vulnerable.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i can't believe how much such a simple statement in the regs can be misinterpreted:
centaurus:
WRONG! I hate writing these things out but here goes:
CAR155(2)
CAR155(3)
How can you say that all stalls can be conducted below 3000 feet? Only "straight and steady" stalls may be conducted in such a fashion.
What is a straight stall? It's impossible to conduct a stall with exactly zero degrees heading change at some point throughout the manoeuvre. Remember a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00001 degree heading change is not "straight". I think the lawyers would have a lot of fun pointing that out to some smart arsed pilot who claimed the he/she could do a straight stall.
The people ripping you off are the ones that only teach or get a student to practice a so-called straight stall.
centaurus:
The guide or best practice only of 3000 ft is certainly best practice for ripping off a student. For decades flying schools have perpetuated the myth that recovery from practice stalls must be completed by 3000 ft. It originated from Tiger Moth and Chipmunk days when the propellers of those early types were prone to stopping during aerobatics and stalling.
CAR155(2)
For the purposes of subregulation (1), straight and steady stalls or turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees shall be deemed not to be aerobatic flight.
A person must not engage in acrobatic flight in an aircraft:
(a) at a height lower than 3000 feet above the highest point of terrain, or any obstacle thereon, within a radius of 600 metres of a line extending vertically below the aircraft; or.......
(a) at a height lower than 3000 feet above the highest point of terrain, or any obstacle thereon, within a radius of 600 metres of a line extending vertically below the aircraft; or.......
What is a straight stall? It's impossible to conduct a stall with exactly zero degrees heading change at some point throughout the manoeuvre. Remember a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00001 degree heading change is not "straight". I think the lawyers would have a lot of fun pointing that out to some smart arsed pilot who claimed the he/she could do a straight stall.
The people ripping you off are the ones that only teach or get a student to practice a so-called straight stall.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about thread drift
Guys,
feel free to start a new thread about aerodynamics. The topic of this thread hasn't been discussed for a couple of pages, therefore it has run its course.
Woomera (Eastern States)
feel free to start a new thread about aerodynamics. The topic of this thread hasn't been discussed for a couple of pages, therefore it has run its course.
Woomera (Eastern States)
