There will be quite a few variables in respect of Rolling a/c,these may include …

Type of a/c (+its rolling characteristics).

That was my question from the beginning Fanavion, not the accuracy of the caption under the photograph.

As I mentioned earlier the DC-3 is a lumbersome and clumsy airplane along its longitudinal axis. It’s like trying to steer a barn and much more rudder is necessary than in a normal aircraft to help it along. There is a rather unusual aircraft response delay when implementing any aileron input in the DC-3 and you must always be ahead of the aircraft on approach and landing.

I would like to ask the pilot the specifics of his maneuver in the DC-3.

Propliner verified to me the authenticity of the photograph. As a matter of fact the editor had to affirm at the printer’s request that the photo was not upside down. I was not in actual communication with the photographer though.

Another beautiful and historic airplane flown with precision within its limits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYQS3qAIjAo

Remember also that all aircraft are structurally certified for many more positive G’s than negative G’s. General Aviation certified aircraft (not military) are certified for up to four positive G’s yet carry a restriction of 1.5 negative G’s on the lower end.

The DC-3 G limitations are:

Flaps up +2.8 and -.80
Flaps down (which is anything but up and can include slight drooping) +1.6 and -.40.

-.40 with flaps anywhere but the up stops to-.80 with flaps up.

To error structurally on the safe side in any non military aircraft it would be safer to keep it on the positive side especially in the DC-3.

Keep in mind as a reference, if you maintain altitude, you will be at two G’s in a 60 degree banked turn.

Another vertical bank photo of the DC-3 in La Camina at the MD80.IT Forum

http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss104/atalanta89/La%20Comina%20Airshow/IMG_6156.jpg

That could well be the top of a wing over.

That’s a good picture fanavion. I see control surface deflection and a slight difference in lighting between the two wings due to the wing dihedral. The upper right wing appears more illuminated than its counterpart indicating it’s not an overhead shot.

Be that as it may, I just contacted the photographer from the link T-21 gave us in his starting post and the organizers of the La Comina Airshow asking for more information about the DC-3 display.

Does anyone know who presently owns DC-3 N49AG ?
.
.

I do know a Propliner staff member and he verified yesterday that the picture in question is authentic.

I flew 49AG when it was still in the US under a different registration number and I have an Internet contact with the present owner as we have exchanged pictures of her history. The aircraft is US registered but is not based in the US. I have received no contact from the group to verify the photo, it’s been two weeks.

I would actually like to speak to the PIC to discuss the procedure. Between my immediate family we have over 8000 hours in the DC-3 and we are still actively involved with two DC-3’s. I would personally like to know more about it.

Oooh, get you!

To be fair, although the ‘pull up’ bit of the quote is confusing, no-one claimed negative G throughout. In fact, the claim was for zero G, with only a touch of negative at one point sufficient to ‘lift’ the glove into the position where it then remained static relative to the aircraft. The engineer in this quote – a different occasion from the glove anecdote – was surprised simply because the G regime felt ‘normal’, and so he wasn’t expecting to be upside down when he looked ‘up’. This is probably a different occasion again from the (possibly apocryphal, I don’t know) story of Mr Henshaw repeating the glove trick with a passenger.

Ummm, the statement made made earlier pertained to a pair of gloves placed on the glare shield rising and floating in space with the aircraft rolling around them. ” surprised a passenger – neatly in space at 0 relative G and rolling the aircraft around them.”

BTW, aircraft normally fly undisturbed at one G, You are sitting at your computer now at one G. You begin to get lighter at anything less than one and are weightless at zero G.

Your statement “In fact, the claim was for zero G, with only a touch of negative at one point sufficient to ‘lift’ the glove into the position where it then remained static relative to the aircraft.” would make a fifth grader snicker. How can you be zero G with a touch of negative?

I stand by what I said.

Ohhhh!

Alex Henshaw himself defended the rolling of a Lancaster in exactly the same way – it was only a 1G manoeuvre, the way he did it. But then, the accuracy of his flying was legendary. In fact, I have heard that he had fun placing objects – and on at least one occasion a surprised passenger – neatly in space at 0 relative G and rolling the aircraft around them.

Equally, though, an aerobatic barrel roll needn’t be – and often isn’t – just 1G. The most G I have felt was deliberately applied to me in the back seat of Goodwood’s Harvard, put through an equally perfect barrel roll by Dieter Sinanan.

So when talking about the stresses on an airframe during a manoeuvre – well, it depends how the manoeuvre is flown.

Anyone with any aerobatic experience will understand the maneuver can’t be flown in a negative G throughout to revolve around a “floating” object.

“From Gull To Camel”

So I put my glove on the top of the Instrument panel coving and as I pulled up we started to get into negative ‘G’. As the glove started to float then I pulled on a slightly positive ‘G’, and in fact I got into a situation where I was operating precisely between positive and negative ‘G’. It was so accurate that on one instance I had my number one fighter pilot up with me, a man called Venda Jicha, and he was in the well of the aircraft taking down the various figures for the engine temperatures and pressures and what‑have‑you, and I beckoned to him that I was going to roll the aircraft and he didn’t really understand what I meant. I pulled it up and I shall never forget the look on his face as we were completely inverted and he was looking at what he thought was the sky but it was the ground!

First, I’d like to watch a negative G occur during a “pullup.” Maybe at the top when he got into the situation the glove floated but what he described is simply a sloppy maneuver.

He did say “he dove the Lancaster to 370 mph, indicated, then when you pulled out you were at a very awkward high pitched angle, and so to get back to normal flying conditions you would either do a turn or you’d do a pitching move, neither of which were particularly elegant. And so on one of these I thought well, after diving and pulling up, I’ve got just about the right speed to do a roll. But I was aware that if I stalled on top of the roll it wouldn’t do me or the aircraft any good.”

You would have to the same thing with the lumber some DC-3 (not 370 MPH though, maybe 220 MPH) so it’s still hard to believe to see this as a “surprise” at low level over the runway at an airshow.

I still need convincing.