galdriPeeDee,
I tried to tell them so, but they just wouldn´t listen! 😮
Most of the rolls being described on this thread are just AILERON rolls! NOT barrel rolls!
All off axis rolls are “barrel rolls” for a lot of people. But there is a world of difference! Like PeeDee says, look at the pictures/videos. If the subject is 90° off the original heading while inverted, then it is a barrel roll. IF not, then it is an aileron roll. Simple as that!
And YES, the Boeing Dash-80 (later to become known as the 707) roll was an AILERON roll, the Transall´s roll is an AILERON roll.
AMB, from watching the clips available on youtube, it was an AILERON roll gone bad, with not enough pitch up before starting the roll. You´d be surprised to learn how many that one has caught out. The latest (in historic aviation) was Brian Brown in a Hurricane at Shoreham. In the report, some will be surprised at the pitch up attitude required for a Hurricane to complete an AILERON roll, at least 40° The AAIB report is not really helpful at times as it is mixing up the terms “barrel roll” and “Aileron roll”, but at the end it becomes clear that they are all along talking about “Aileron roll”.
When I owned a Piper J3-65 Cub, my mentor said I should nerver, EVER, try to aileron roll the thing, I believed him! He had tried and got scared, VERY scared.
Some aircraft will AILERON roll, others wont. I firmly believe the DC-3 is in the latter category!
galdriBefore totally loosing ourselves over the possible visit to FL 2011, shouldn´t we let them fly the bl00dy thing first? :eek:;)
galdriI agree it is perhaps a bit complicated 😀
Let´s just say that a barrel roll is a loop with a roll involved and an aileron roll is a pull up with a pause and then roll :D:D:D
Should make it simple!
galdriGood news all round.
It certainly is. I never thought this request would turn up an article in The Aeroplane, as I was not sure the letter had even been published.
Sigurjon, obliged! Put to good use immediately!
That is really great! :D:D Now I´ll have to see if I can get the English version to work on my status!
galdriGentlemen,
Whilst I´ve no opinion of whether a DC 3 is capable of rolling (it probably is!), I would like to draw your attention to one minor flaw in this whole thread. You are talking about different types of rolls as if they are the same.
A barrel roll is, by aerobatic definition, a combination of a loop and a roll. To perform one, you pull up sharply (about 3.5 -4.0 G´s in an aerobatic aircraft) like you are entering a loop. While pulling, you also deflect ailerons to initiate a roll. The perfect barrel roll is to achieve 90°of pitch up with a heading change of 45°, a 180° pitch up (inverted) with 90° of heading change, 270° of pitch – 45° of heading change and end up flying level on the same heading as you started. Sounds complicated, and it is!
An Aileron roll is perfomed by pulling 1.5 – 2 G´s into a ca. 20° nose up attitude (depends on aircraft type, some are happy with 10° some will require 45°+). When achieving the nose up angle required by your aircraft type, you neutralist the elevators and start rolling with the ailerons.
Two very different maneuvers, but look similar from the ground. In my mind, a barrel roll in a DC 3 would be a suicide, but an aileron roll might very well be possible.
galdriDon,
I really appreciate your help on this matter, even if your lead turned out to be a dead end. I also really like your babelfish translation of the term “Half wit”, it really made me chuckle :D:D For your future reference, the correct translation is “hálfviti” :diablo::D:D Feel free to use it when ever you are addressing me! 😉
James,
Thank you for the offer of assistance that has now been rendered unnecessary, much to your relieve, by barnstormer´s superb find.
Barnstormer,
What a superb find! Thank you for taking the time. You have a PM inbound!
galdriBarnstormer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to look this up! The aircraft was an Avro 504 and it was a civil operation.
Maybe the letter (if it was published at all!) was a bit later than end of October, as postal delivery to foreign countries was very elementary at the time.
Thanks again for taking the time.
regards,
Sigurjon
galdriThank you for your offer to help out Don.
If no-one else has access, I´ll take you up on your offer.
Sigurjon
galdriDonClark,
Cheers, it feels good not being the only HALF-WIT on the forum :D:D
galdriIf you are in fact a ” 74-year-old Luddite” sitting behind a computer, my hat is off to you Sir!! My father is the same age, and he does not even know how to turn the bloody thing ON!
Even at my “tender” age of 37, google does not always show what I want it to show. I stand by my earlier comment, that maybe the OP was not specific in his searches (if he performed them!).
galdriStepwilk,
While I understand your first post, there is more to it than meets the eye! Some of us are completely useless at google-ing. More than once, I´ve been burned by that. I put up a question on here (or elsewhere) only to be told that it is easily found on google, but prior to asking I´ve usually been franticly googe-ing but have not found a match. I guess it has something to do with knowing how the search engines work, and what to put into them.
As for this OP´s question, I, for one, would never have thought about putting “FAA warbird moratorium” into google, as it appears he was not even a aware that the moratorium part had anything to do with the FAA!
Just my 2 cents worth! 😉
galdriThanks Paul, for taking the time to double check!
Yes, this all adds to the confusion 😡
Seems like the entries for the aircraft OR the carrier are wrong! The official Royal Naval Movements diary would presumably be based on the ships logs??? If it is, then we can only come to the conclusion that the aircraft´s entries are wrong. Since I know a bit about the history of the airframe in Iceland, it would appear that it landed in Iceland with an injector malfunction that caused one engine to be shut down. During it´s stay in Iceland, I have reason to believe that the RN intended to repair it and fly it out but some incident happened that made it uneconomical to do so.
Now comes the next question to the knowledgeable guys on here. Does this sound like a likely scenario: Aircraft lands in Keflavik without any real damage, only probable injector problems. Aircraft otherwise undamaged. A working party is sent out to repair it, but something happens on ground runs* that will require a lot of extra work which is considered uneconomical. No one, by now, remembers when exactly when the engine failure happened so the end date of the aircraft is recorded as the date Eagle left port. In the opinion of guys having studied records like these, is this a viable explanation??
But there is more to it than this. Through a valued contributor to this forum I´ve got the transcript of the message from RAFLO Keflavik, and in his words, it APPEARS dated 1.st of September. Is it possible that the date of the message was tampered with to make it fit with scenario described above to keep the books in order?
*According to the official paperwork, the aircraft had an engine failure after take off. When trying to jettison the long range fuel tanks, only one fell off. In addition the RAFLO report said “landed Keflavik without further damage”. I have in my possession a photograph of the aircraft at it´s final resting place where, lo and behold, both drop tanks are in place AND the prop visible in the picture has damage to one blade that might have been caused by by a taxiing accident with the engines at very low power.
The presence of both drop tanks is a mystery, as they would certainly NOT have been available on stock at Keflavik. To me that would indicate that the second drop tank was transported over there to fly the aircraft back. Unless, of course, there is not a word correct in the history of the aircraft, and it landed with both tanks still attached. What do you think?
galdrihow many Spitfires have you actually worked on? Are you part of AA on IOW?
OOPS! I think you have just dug your hole:eek::D I think this is THE man at AA on IOW:D But I´m sure he can defend himself on here, so I´ll not go into details:cool:
But on the whole your argument is flawed. This is what you said:
If *everything* is already at hand, you don’t have to hunt or wait for any parts (or money) & you work at least 40hour weeks then 2 people can knock out a Spitfire in a year without too much bother.
So if everything is at hand it will take two people working 40 hrs. a week to assemble a Spit from components? Lets look at the maths. 2X40 is 80, so that is the total number of hours worked in a week. I hope everyone can agree that there are 52 weeks in a year, so 80 x 52 is 4160! By your reasoning it only takes 4160 hours to restore/build a Spitfire:eek: with all the parts readily available off the shelf!
Now, if we look a little closer in time, Van´s Aircraft time estimate for the building of one of their little hotships is 2000-2200 hours (not talking about QuickBuild Kits here). http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/time-bld.htm
So you are telling me that a kit version of a Spitfire done to museum standards will only take twice as long? I´m sorry, but I´m not buying that one!
In the above example, we are talking about kit planes. Everything is ready, has been made and can be installed. A restoration is a completely different kettle of fish and will take a lot more time. I know first hand the difference between the two, and in many cases it would be a lot more time efficient to just scrap the old parts and produce a new one right from the start. But when you are “restoring” something that is not the way to go. If it can be used, even with a lot of time spent on it, then you must use it!
galdriThe plot thickens!
According to the history of the airframe, it flew off Eagle on the 1st of september 1953 and further I´ve got a copy of a message from the RAFLO Keflavik to the Admiralty apparently dated on the first of September 1953 concerning the aircraft. In that message it is stated it flew off Eagle “off the Icelandic coast”
Something is wrong here!
Edited to add: According to information gathered from US. archives, Exercise MARINER started off the Icelandic coast on the 6th of September with the participation of three aircraft carriers. Might be duff info??
Thanks for taking the time Alan, I appreciate it.
Regards,
Sigurjon
galdriThanks Lee,
I´ve already got what I believe is all the available material on the aircraft even if it is a bit thin on the ground! What I would ideally like to find out is the whereabouts of Eagle on that day. Off the Icelandic coast is a pretty vague description :confused:
Sign In
