> 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 . . .
For some reason I have a problem with the concept of a military
aircraft that can't handle moderate stress manoeuvers like that.
I'm OK with a C130 or C17 or C5 not being able to do one, because they
generally aren't used for directly engaging the enemy. Yes, the C130
has been in several variants and uses, but that's not the primary
mission.
> 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.
Design limits or limits of that specific test airframe?
> The problem arises if the pilot manages to turn it into a looping
> manoeuvre without sufficient height to recover.
Exactly. You've got to be smart with the rudder peddles to keep things
moving, but not rip the emphanage off. It's still a coordinated
turn--more or less...
A number of years ago, at one airshow, I watched a routine that
involved more than the usual number of barrel rolls and low level
loops. The guy was flying a Stearman, which is adequate for the job,
but is as aerodynamic as a Mack Truck. You've got to keep throttle in
it to keep from going backwards. During one low level roll, he lost so
much altitude that he pancaked the landing gear on the runway. He was
never invited back. Rumor has it that he packed it in a few years
later practicing over a corn field.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|