Thanks, Ian. It is more a “victory roll”, really, done with a nice high nose
and very gently. The pilots used to say that it handled like a fighter, but
none of them was a fighter pilot . . .
It’s very unlikely that anyone would give permission for such a manoeuvre now.
Consider also that a Vulcan disintegrated during another show
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Syerston_Avro_Vulcan_crash
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Syerston_Avro_Vulcan_crash>> so it was
probably operating very close to its airframe limits in any manoeuvre like this.
Chris
> On 14 Jul 15, at 13:54, Ian Nichols <ian.a.nichols@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 14 July 2015 at 06:07, ChrisB <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>> At least 1G, Ken. And if you keep the nose well above the horizon for the
>> first half, the second half should be safe enough.
>>
>> The problem arises if the pilot manages to turn it into a looping
>> manoeuvre without sufficient height to recover.
>>
>>
> I looked up the famous footage of a Vulcan supposedly barrel-rolling at
> Farnborough back in the fifties. It's certainly a roll, but not really
> what I'd call a barrel roll. It looks to me like the pilot started with a
> climb, but he'd had to have done that to execute an aileron roll without
> crashing. The following changes in altitude are simply down to that
> initial climb, gravity and the rather slow (compared to, say, a Hawk) rate
> of roll available. That makes it look a bit like a barrel roll, I guess
> the distinction might be a bit academic - is it still a barrel roll if it
> happens within the wingspan of the aircraft? I defer to your greater
> expertise in any case.
>
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac7_1332758712
> <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac7_1332758712>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|