Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Magic Mossies
Aussiegunneragain    7/11/2010 9:01:10 AM
There was a thread on here a few years ago put up by a fellow named Shooter, who was trying to make the argument that the Dehavilland Mosquito was a strategically insignificant aircraft which should never have been produced for the RAF, because it represented a waste of engines which could have better been used in Avro Lancasters. Shooter, an American, had a hobby of trying to diss any non-American type that had an excellent reputation (the Spitfire was another favourite target) and most people here told him he was being a clown with that being the end of it. However, the thread has stuck in the back of my mind and made me wonder whether in fact the Mossie, despite its widespread usage in a variety of roles, was in fact underutilised in the daylight strategic bombing role? It did perform some very important low level raids such as the daylight raid on the Phillips radio works (along with Ventura's and Bostons - far less Mossies were shot down)in Holland during Operation Oyster. However, I can't find many references to the Mossie being used for the sort of regular high altitude daylight strategic bombing missions that the B-17 and other USAF daylight heavies conducted. Consider its characteristics: -It could carry 4 x 500lb bombs all the way to Berlin which meant that you needed three mossies to carry a slightly larger warload than one B-17 did, which upon this basis meant more engine per lb of bomb in the Mossie. -However, the Mossie was hard to catch and was more survivable than the Heavies. The latter only really became viable with the addition of long-range escort fighters, something that the mossie could have done without. -It only required two crew versus ten on a B-17. Without intending to be critical of the USAF daylight heavies, because they were one of the strategically vital assets in winning WW2, I am wondering whether had the RAF used the Mossie in the role at the expense of night bombing operations in Lancasters? I have read accounts that suggest that the later were not really directly successful in shutting down German production, with the main contribution being that they forced the Germans to provide 24/7 air defence. If they had used Mossies more in the daylight precision role is it possible that the impact that the fighter-escorted USAF bombers had on German production might have been bought forward by a year or so, helping to end the War earlier? Another idea that I have is that if Reich fighter defences had started to get too tough for unescorted Merlin powered Mossies on strategic daylight missions, that they could have built the Griffon or Sabre powered versions that never happenned to keep the speed advantage over the FW-190? Up-engined Fighter versions of the Mossie would also have probably had sufficient performance to provide escort and fighter sweep duties in Germany in order to provide the bombers with even more protection. Thoughts? (PS, in case anybody hasn't worked it out the Mossie is my favourite military aircraft and my second favourite aircraft after the Supermarine S-6B ... so some bias might show through :-). I do think it has to rate as one of the best all round aircraft of all time based on its merits alone).
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT
oldbutnotwise       3/20/2013 4:35:49 PM
, there is documented evidence of a Lancaster losing 800lbs of tail turret and gunner yet that managed to return to England what was the change in cofg of  that? Part one. The loss of so much weight aft would tend to make the plane more stable, not less.
sorry to burst your bubble a reduction of that weight at that distance is equal to the gaining of the same weight at the same distance at the opposite end so the turning force is the same around the CofG yet somehow one helps and the other causes crashes yeah right
 
  the Manchester was tested with balast to silmulate hung bombs in all possible conbinations       
  Please post a link to those balasted tests to simulate hung bombs.
no do your own research you refuse to believe anything we post so the only option is to force you to do your own

  Now all you have to do is show that the reverse of the above condition, IE Loosing weight in back, did not destabilise the plane, so once again, I ask for you to post the link to the above tests!
And I asked you to post a link to it causing a problem and I am still waiting
Shooter if you cannot see something that does not mean it doesnt exists the more logical explanation is that it was a problem and therefore didnt get mentioned, like crew movement the movement of a crew member about the plane will effect the weight distribution but you dont find reports of that either, why?
     Because the 200 pounds was not nearly as dangerous as 1000! Secondly, the crew was located in a more or less equal ditribution of weight fore and aft and it was very hard to get over the wing in flight to transfer much weight aft!    
but that weight could and did move further round the cofg especially as the Elson loo was located in the aft of the fuselage

    
Links to the above would be nice! 

That was a Joke right? you asking for a link?


If your BS had any truth in  it there would be reports of hung bombs causing control loss - where are they?
  Because if the plane was lost, how would they know what caused it? After all, there was very little chance of a sucessful escape from most of the forward possitions and the pilot would be the only one to know.

oh now convenient that all the crew that survived Lancaster loses all came from ones that didn't suffer this problem and none from aircraft that did

  What I said is that it was possible to fit said bombs into the bay. Once again, you post a lie and then atribute it to me.

no I post what YOU claimed I can find posts where you admit that you had no idea about hung bombs but claimed the Lancaster a. could only carry 2 1000lbs abreast and NONE on the rear racks both of which are fabrications
b. the b17 carried 6 x2000lbs internally
This is easy as they are in the SAME post
ph and its still not possible to fit them into the bay

 
 
But as an aside, I do not think they ever did a flight test with the CoG being so far out of ballence for any plane! Even to this day! The idea that someone would risk his life trying to fly any plane that badly out of ballence, seems strange to me?
a lot of things are strange to you incuding the truth, the reason for these test are to ensure that the plane is flyable in conditions it could reasonably expect to encounter and hung bombs are as you point out a common occurance (so much so that a  hatch was provided above every bomb position for the crew to check the bomb release and to manually release it if it had hung) yet somehow you think it wouldn't be checked!
 
yet in all this time only you have thought of this? despite the same bay diemensions being used on the shackleton that operated into the 1980s
  Eactly what were the dimentions and areas of the Shakleton? And why were they changed?
the critical figure here is that the Lancaster had a 33' bomb bay and the size of the Shackleton was.. 33' wow big difference there
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/21/2013 4:08:15 AM
The MS 2004 flight sim uses the Haynes Manual as a source, OBNW.
 

Barrel Roll

The Lancaster was barrel rolled at slow speed during a test flight.

When a pilot barrel-rolled it at full speed with a full bomb-load during combat to evade a fighter he thought he was being shot with rifle bullets. On later examination, it proved to be rivets popping out of the wings.

 
Note that the Flying Fortress cannot be safely barrel rolled with a bomb load?
 
 
 

 
PAGE 24. inboard to outboard, and then to center wing tanks. The plane had to be trimmed as each pair of tanks was burned off, otherwise the nose climbed.    Once again, note the use of the word "Trim" instead of Control.
As for elevators same manual PAGE 10. It reinforces page 24.
General flying
(i)  Stability.-At normal loadings and speeds, stability is satisfactory.
I think you need to check more reports, satisfactory is the wording used to indicate that it passes, you will find that it is the highest rating

(ii)  Controls.-The elevators are relatively light and effective, but tend to become heavy in turns. The
ailerons are light and effective, but become heavy at speeds over 260 m.p.h. The rudders also
become heavy at high speeds. Again, note the use of the word "Trim" and that the "Stability" is just "Satisfactory" not great, or good!
you will find that great or good is never used in these documents, satisfactory is the highest rating
 
This is clearly why you do NOT know how planes work
The above highlighted shows why you do not have a clue to any of the above!
 
no its an indicator that you know nothing
 
Almost everthing you wrote above it terribly wrong!
 
and is a FLIGHT SIM the best you can do? what a joke

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/21/2013 9:48:30 PM

, there is documented evidence of a Lancaster losing 800lbs of tail turret and gunner yet that managed to return to England what was the change in cofg of  that? Part one. The loss of so much weight aft would tend to make the plane more stable, not less.
sorry to burst your bubble a reduction of that weight at that distance is equal to the gaining of the same weight at the same distance at the opposite end so the turning force is the same around the CofG yet somehow one helps and the other causes crashes yeah right
YES! Absolutely! The wing's natural pivoting moment is down in front. The elevator is there to stop that. Therefore it has very much more power to lift the nose, and or cause a pitch up change in attitude. That is why it is no big deal to oppose a pitch down moment. On the other hand, getting the CoG to the right place is checked and verrified long before the plane ever starts to turn a prop.
 
Shooter if you cannot see something that does not mean it doesnt exists the more logical explanation is that it was a problem and therefore didnt get mentioned, like crew movement the movement of a crew member about the plane will effect the weight distribution but you dont find reports of that either, why?
Tell me about all the other defects for which we find no reports?  Or the BoB overclaiming syndrome, etc. The basic idea i8s that no report as necessary because the problem is so well known and understood that no-one out of first grade talks about it.
If your BS had any truth in  it there would be reports of hung bombs causing control loss - where are they? How would they know?
  Because if the plane was lost, how would they know what caused it? After all, there was very little chance of a sucessful escape from most of the forward possitions and the pilot would be the only one to know.
oh now convenient that all the crew that survived Lancaster loses all came from ones that didn't suffer this problem and none from aircraft that did
How else can you explain the >55,000 RAF-BC losses? Lancasters alone accounted for more deaths than the entire USAAF heavy bomber's crew losses. That is B-17s, B-24s, B-29s and ALL of the smaller Medium Bombers too!

But as an aside, I do not think they ever did a flight test with the CoG being so far out of ballence for any plane! Even to this day! The idea that someone would risk his life trying to fly any plane that badly out of ballence, seems strange to me?

a lot of things are strange to you incuding the truth, the reason for these test are to ensure that the plane is flyable But that is the entire point! The plane is not flyable in that condition! They go out of their way to ensure that the CoG IS in the correct location. Before they try to fly it! in conditions it could reasonably expect to encounter That is also the point! That is NOT a reasonable expectation! That it is why it is so devistating when it does! and hung bombs are as you point out a common occurance (so much so that a  hatch was provided above every bomb position for the crew to check the bomb release and to manually release it if it had hung) yet somehow you think it wouldn't be checked! The hatch over the bomb shackle is news to me. Will have to look it up when my new book gets here later in the week. I say this because those hatches are not shown in the blue prints posted on line!
 
yet in all this time only you have thought of this? despite the same bay diemensions being used on the shackleton that operated into the 1980s
  Eactly what were the dimentions and areas of the Shakleton? And why were they changed?
the critical figure here is that the Lancaster had a 33' bomb bay and the size of the Shackleton was.. 33' wow big difference there
  NO!, the criticle dimention was NOT the LoA of the bomb bay! The Criticle dimention was the size of the Horizontal Stab and Elevator and their distance from the CoG! So you have missed this entirely!

 

 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/21/2013 9:58:34 PM

The MS 2004 flight sim uses the Haynes Manual as a source, OBNW.
And this relates how? But is fine by me!!!
 Barrel Roll

The Lancaster was barrel rolled at slow speed during a test flight.
The Barrel Roll is a positive G maneuver! How does this demonstrate ability to survive a NEGITIVE G maneuver?
When a pilot barrel-rolled it at full speed with a full bomb-load during combat to evade a fighter he thought he was being shot with rifle bullets. On later examination, it proved to be rivets popping out of the wings.

If the rivits poped, the plane was only inches-rivets from being lost to structual failure!
       
Note that the Flying Fortress cannot be safely barrel rolled with a bomb load?
Why not? It is a positive G maneuver and almost any polane CAN do it!!!
 
(i)  Stability.-At normal loadings and speeds, stability is satisfactory.
I think you need to check more reports, satisfactory is the wording used to indicate that it passes, you will find that it is the highest rating Like I state below, have you ever read the Spitfire test reports? RIGHT!!!!

No, it is not the highest rating!(ii)  Controls.-The elevators are relatively light and effective, but tend to become heavy in turns. The
ailerons are light and effective, but become heavy at speeds over 260 m.p.h. The rudders also
become heavy at high speeds. Again, note the use of the word "Trim" and that the "Stability" is just "Satisfactory" not great, or good!
you will find that great or good is never used in these documents, satisfactory is the highest rating
Have you ever read the test reports of the Spitfire? RIGHT! 
 
A friend of mine, Buzzy Olsen barrel rolled a B-47, so what? As far as I can find, there is no plane ever flown that can not do a barrel roll!!!!
 



 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/22/2013 5:31:33 AM
 YES! Absolutely! The wing's natural pivoting moment is down in front. The elevator is there to stop that. Therefore it has very much more power to lift the nose, and or cause a pitch up change in attitude. That is why it is no big deal to oppose a pitch down moment. On the other hand, getting the CoG to the right place is checked and verrified long before the plane ever starts to turn a prop. 
yet you claim it wasn't?    if up pitch was that critical do you not think that anything that would effect it was not checked? and why if up pitch was fatal and down pitch easy controllable did the design team not ensure that any bomb hangs would be neutral or nose down?
 
     Tell me about all the other defects for which we find no reports?  Or the BoB overclaiming syndrome, etc. The basic idea i8s that no report as necessary because the problem is so well known and understood that no-one out of first grade talks about it.    
that is bull, if a pilot walked into debrief and said he had a bomb on the last but one row hang up and it damn nearly crashed the plane do you think for 1 second that no one would thing "whoa if it does that on the last but one what will it do on the last one?" you live in a fantasy world in which you can never be wrong despite the evidence, any defect effecting a plane was reported as standard procedure, whether it was fixed is a different matter but reported it got
 .
oh now convenient that all the crew that survived Lancaster loses all came from ones that didn't suffer this problem and none from aircraft that did
How else can you explain the >55,000 RAF-BC losses? Lancasters alone accounted for more deaths than the entire USAAF heavy bomber's crew losses.
that we have disproved
That is B-17s, B-24s, B-29s and ALL of the smaller Medium Bombers too!
talk sense
 
RAF losses were so high because of the targets they were assigned, easy targets = low loses, hard targets = high loses
the B26 had the lowest losses of all uSAAF aircraft, why because they were used against tactical targets and heavily escorted, when the actually met resistance they suffered horribly
 
Before they try to fly it! in conditions it could reasonably expect to encounter That is also the point! That is NOT a reasonable expectation!
but it is you yourself admitted in an earlier post that bomb hangs are common and to be expected so having a bomb hang on the last row would have been anticipated yet their is no record of it being highlighted as an issue
      The hatch over the bomb shackle is news to me. Will have to look it up when my new book gets here later in the week. I say this because those hatches are not shown in the blue prints posted on line!       
  you know so little and claim so much

  NO!, the criticle dimention was NOT the LoA of the bomb bay! The Criticle dimention was the size of the Horizontal Stab and Elevator and their distance from the CoG! So you have missed this entirely!
 
so what you are saying is not that the hang of a bomb was an issue but that it had insufficient vertical control to counter the hung bomb, again so such reports exist and the CofG of the Shackleton was approximately in the same place so any turning force would be similar yet they used the same control surfaces
 
It is also of note about the loading restrictions of Lancastrian's and York's
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/22/2013 6:32:44 AM

The Lancaster was barrel rolled at slow speed during a test flight.
The Barrel Roll is a positive G maneuver! How does this demonstrate ability to survive a NEGITIVE G maneuver?
When a pilot barrel-rolled it at full speed with a full bomb-load during  combat to evade a fighter he thought he was being shot with rifle  bullets. On later examination, it proved to be rivets popping out of the  wings.

           If the rivits poped, the plane was only inches-rivets from being lost to structual failure!  
really, from this you get that, I have read reports of B17 popping wing rivets on  normal bombing take offs but I don't assume that its means structural failure, this just shows your bias, you immediately assume its means the worst, despite the fact that the bomber in question managed to avoid the night fighter drop it bombs and return to base      
       
Note that the Flying Fortress cannot be safely barrel rolled with a bomb load?
Why not? It is a positive G maneuver and almost any polane CAN do it!!!
again you refer to something that whilst might have been possible was NEVER done and was not even considered possible by all who flew B17s,
So on one side we have documented evidence of it happening and on the other we have YOU, no contest with your support then it makes it certain that it was not possible to roll a B17

 
(i)  Stability.-At normal loadings and speeds, stability is satisfactory.
I think you need to check more reports, satisfactory is the wording used to indicate that it passes, you will find that it is the highest rating Like I state below, have you ever read the Spitfire test reports? RIGHT!!!!
 
Sorry I made a stupid assumption, I assumed you were talking about BOMBERs not fighters, Can you please provide a test report of a BOMBER that states the controls as anything but satisfactory,
 
then I decided to look up the reports on the spitfire just in case, and well what do you know they state that the controls were Satisfactory! again shooter making a claim that he had not researched and hoped would back his statement.
 
so to check other aircraft and what do you know satisfactory appears again and again, in fact the only time I can find good or excellent being used is when assessing captured aircraft which appears to be using different scales
 

No, it is not the highest rating!(ii)  Controls.-The elevators are relatively light and effective, but tend to become heavy in turns. The
ailerons are light and effective, but become heavy at speeds over 260 m.p.h. The rudders also
become heavy at high speeds. Again, note the use of the word "Trim" and that the "Stability" is just "Satisfactory" not great, or good!
you will find that great or good is never used in these documents, satisfactory is the highest rating      
Have you ever read the test reports of the Spitfire? RIGHT! 
 
A friend of mine, Buzzy Olsen barrel rolled a B-47, so what? As far as I can find, there is no plane ever flown that can not do a barrel roll!!!!
 
and that proves what? if you have evidence of a B17 or B24 barrel rolling then that would be fine but a 1950s aircraft means absolutely nothing
basically you are trying to make out that barrel rolling a 4 engine piston bomber with full bomb load is nothing which shows you are grasping at straws
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/22/2013 9:13:17 AM
 
Note the vector force change on the wings and how important tail pitch up/down control to nose point is?
 
This is what Shooter does not understand. 
 
Everything he says about the 'barrel roll' is... fundamentally  wrong. 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/22/2013 8:57:56 PM

YES! Absolutely! The wing's natural pivoting moment is down in front. The elevator is there to stop that. Therefore it has very much more power to lift the nose, and or cause a pitch up change in attitude. That is why it is no big deal to oppose a pitch down moment. On the other hand, getting the CoG to the right place is checked and verrified long before the plane ever starts to turn a prop. 

yet you claim it wasn't?    if up pitch was that critical do you not think that anything that would effect it was not checked? and why if up pitch was fatal and down pitch easy controllable did the design team not ensure that any bomb hangs would be neutral or nose down?
Then you tell me why they built a 33' long bomb bay?
Tell me about all the other defects for which we find no reports?  Or the BoB overclaiming syndrome, etc. The basic idea is that no report as necessary because the problem is so well known and understood that no-one out of first grade talks about it.    
that is bull, if a pilot walked into debrief and said he had a bomb on the last but one row hang up and it damn nearly crashed the plane do you think for 1 second that no one would thing "whoa if it does that on the last but one what will it do on the last one?" you live in a fantasy world in which you can never be wrong despite the evidence, any defect effecting a plane was reported as standard procedure, whether it was fixed is a different matter but reported it got
But this is where you fail again! the next to last row can be controlled, sort of like the P-51 with it's far aft CoG with the fuel tank behind the pilot full. Were you able to find the blue prints with the bomb rack inspection port in the floor? I thought not!
oh now convenient that all the crew that survived Lancaster loses all came from ones that didn't suffer this problem and none from aircraft that did Sounds reasonable to me! Given the possible and sudden PIO and near instantainious destruction of the plane caused by excessive aft CoG, it sounds entirely possible to me!
How else can you explain the >55,000 RAF-BC losses? Lancasters alone accounted for more deaths than the entire USAAF heavy bomber's crew losses.
 
that we have disproved
Really? Just when was that supposed to have happened?
 
That is B-17s, B-24s, B-29s and ALL of the smaller Medium Bombers too!
talk sense
I am, the entire USAAF lost about 52,000 crewmen. Of that 52K, a little under half were bomber crews! ALL bomber crews!
RAF losses were so high because of the targets they were assigned, easy targets = low loses, hard targets = high loses
You base this on the fact that the USAAF lost about the same number of planes, but those losses were 80% less dangerous to their crews because the RAF's targets were so much more dangerous? RIGHT! This is silly on it's face! When a RAF Heavy went down, less than 11% of the crew escaped, IIRC! What kind of catastrophic event could cause thye plane to explode so quickly that no-one gets out? 
but it is you yourself admitted in an earlier post that bomb hangs are not un-common common and to be expected so having a bomb hang on the last row would have been anticipated yet their is no record of it being highlighted as an issue
How do you explain it other wise!
you know so little and claim so much
Link to same on blue prints? Right! NO!, the criticle dimention was NOT the LoA of the bomb bay! The Criticle dimention was the size of the Horizontal Stab and Elevator and their distance from the CoG! So you have missed this entirely!

so what you are saying is not that the hang of a bomb was an issue but that it had insufficient vertical control to counter the hung bomb, That is sertainly one way of stating it! 
A, NO! the Shakleton was both longer in the Fuse between the CoG in the wing and the CoP of the elevator!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/22/2013 9:10:30 PM

The Lancaster was barrel rolled at slow speed during a test flight.
The Barrel Roll is a positive G maneuver! How does this demonstrate ability to survive a NEGITIVE G maneuver?
When a pilot barrel-rolled it at full speed with a full bomb-load during  combat to evade a fighter he thought he was being shot with rifle  bullets. On later examination, it proved to be rivets popping out of the  wings. If the rivits poped, the plane was only inches-rivets from being lost to structual failure!
really, from this you get that, I have read reports of B17 popping wing rivets on  normal bombing take offs but I don't assume that its means structural failure, this just shows your bias, you immediately assume its means the worst, despite the fact that the bomber in question managed to avoid the night fighter drop it bombs and return to base      
-Yes! Exactly! If there are rivits being poped by excessive loading, the plane is close to destruction!    

Note that the Flying Fortress cannot be safely barrel rolled with a bomb load?
Why not? It is a positive G maneuver and almost any polane CAN do it!!!
again you refer to something that whilst might have been possible was NEVER done and was not even considered possible by all who flew B17s,     
Read about the first Demo flight of the 707 Boeing Airlinner!
So on one side we have documented evidence of it happening and on the other we have YOU, no contest with your support then it makes it certain that it was not possible to roll a B17
No, on one side we have your oppinion and on the other we have real live pilots who have barrel rolled real live air craft!

(i)  Stability.-At normal loadings and speeds, stability is satisfactory.
I think you need to check more reports, satisfactory is the wording used to indicate that it passes, you will find that it is the highest rating Like I state below, have you ever read the Spitfire test reports? RIGHT!!!!

Sorry I made a stupid assumption, I assumed you were talking about BOMBERs not fighters, Can you please provide a test report of a BOMBER that states the controls as anything but satisfactory,
Try the early models of the B-17!
then I decided to look up the reports on the spitfire just in case, and well what do you know they state that the controls were Satisfactory! again shooter making a claim that he had not researched and hoped would back his statement.
In what I am told by many here is the BEST book on the Spitfire, which by the way has many quotes of test pilots, etc... uses words like "Superlitive" "Excellent" "Great" and "Extraordinary"! Right!
      basically you are trying to make out that barrel rolling a 4 engine piston bomber with full bomb load is nothing which shows you are grasping at straws  
Go ask any pilot about what kind of maneuver a barrel roll is!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/22/2013 9:22:39 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1103/dogman/aileronbarrelroll.jpg" width="655" height="543" alt="" />
Note the vector force change on the wings and how important tail pitch up/down control to nose point is?
Absolutely! Note that to do this maneuver, you have to have back force on the stick and positive "G" on the plane as a whole! That is why it is the stunt of choise for large planes like the Lancaster, B-47 and 707 Airlinner!
This is what Shooter does not understand.  Everything he says about the 'barrel roll' is... fundamentally  wrong.  No, this is absolute proof that niether of you two knows what you are arguing about!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_roll
A barrel roll is an aerial maneuver in which an aeroplane makes a complete rotation on its longitudinal axis while following a helical path, approximately maintaining its original direction. It is sometimes described as "a combination of a loop and a roll". The g-forceis kept positive(but not constant) on the object throughout the maneuver, commonly between 2–3 g, and no less than 0.5 g.[1]
Aviation

In aviation, the maneuver includes a constant variation of aircraft attitude (nose orientation) in all three axes, and at the midpoint (top) of the roll, the aircraft is flying inverted, with the nose pointing at roughly a right angle to the general path of flight. The term "barrel roll" is frequently used, incorrectly, to refer to any roll by an airplane (see aileron roll). Most often, a barrel roll refers to a helical roll around the relative forward motion of the aircraft, in which the nose ends up pointed along the flight path. It is performed by doing a combination of a roll and a loop.[2]

Outside of aerobatic competition, the Boeing 367-80 and Concorde prototype were barrel rolled during testing. The Boeing 367-80 (707) was rolled twice by Tex Johnston in an unauthorized maneuver while demonstrating the aircraft to the International Air Transport Association over Lake Washington, Seattle. Concorde was rolled multiple times by her test pilots, including Jean Franchi and Brian Walpole.[3]Avro test pilot Roly Falk rolled the Avro Vulcan during a display at the 1955 Farnborough airshow, gaining height during the manoeuvre.[4]

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics