Fastest Roll Rate ?
Daren S. Sorenson
Does anyone know what aircraft, either Military or otherwise has the
fastest roll rate ?
Thanks
Phil and Mia Waters
John Weiss
On 9/29/97 8:59PM, in message <34307926...@webnology.com>, "Daren S.
Sorenson" <da...@webnology.com> wrote:
Does anyone know what aircraft, either Military or otherwise has the
fastest roll rate ?
Don't know if it's "THE" fastest, but the A-4 had 700-720 deg/sec, depending on
model.
--
John Weiss, Seattle, WA
Mike Moore
Daren S. Sorenson wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what aircraft, either Military or otherwise has the
> fastest roll rate ?
>
The T-38 was capable of 720 degress / sec at full stick deflection.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mike Moore EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
______________________________________________________________________________
Ron Katona
Daren S. Sorenson wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what aircraft, either Military or otherwise has the
> fastest roll rate ?
>
> Thanks
Since you said Military or otherwise, I'd guess one of the hotter
aerobatic prop jobs like an SU-31, or the Extra 300.
--
Ron Katona mailto:ro...@cris.com
Simon H. Lee
In article <N.093097.061134.20@ruth>,
jrw...@seanet.com (John Weiss) wrote:
>On 9/29/97 8:59PM, in message <34307926...@webnology.com>, "Daren S.
>
> Does anyone know what aircraft, either Military or otherwise has the
> fastest roll rate ?
>
depending on
>model.
I thought that was the T-38 which had the 720?
--
Okay, listen up! This one's on the Internet! I'm here to log on, so check
your six! I'm gonna read my mail, and I'm gonna surf Usenet. It's gonna
be a real knife fight. Now I'm gonna utilize my filters and perhaps even a
killfile. And when I'm done, you'll have messages. It might be flames,
and it might be spam. And one more thing... it's okay to be scared!
Brett Jaffee
Actually, I think the Giles G-200 beats both the Extra and Sukhoi. It may not
roll at 720 deg/sec, but I've seen footage of it rolling, and i'ts INCREDIBLE!
It looked more like an r/c plane rolling, then a fullscale, man-carrying
airplane.
In article <3431A3...@cris.com>, ro...@cris.com wrote:
>Daren S. Sorenson wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone know what aircraft, either Military or otherwise has the
>> fastest roll rate ?
>>
>> Thanks
>
>Since you said Military or otherwise, I'd guess one of the hotter
>aerobatic prop jobs like an SU-31, or the Extra 300.
__________________________________________________________________________
Brett Jaffee
Brett's Slope and Power Home Page:
http://www.earthlink.net/~jaffee
The Unoffical Extra 300 Home Page:
http://www.bayarea.net/~nathan/extra300/
REMOVE THE "X" FROM MY EMAIL ADDRESS BEFORE REPLYING!
__________________________________________________________________________
Felix Morley Finch
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:56:31 -0400, Mike Moore <m...@kodaki.kodak.com> scrawled:
>Daren S. Sorenson wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone know what aircraft, either Military or otherwise has the
>> fastest roll rate ?
>
I remember reading in AvLeak many years ago that the F-16 was
artifically limited to 720/sec because any faster was bad for the
pilot. But memory is foggy, etc...
--
... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._.
Felix Finch, scarecrow repairer, rocket surgeon / fe...@crowfix.com
PGP = 91 B3 94 7C E9 E8 76 2D E1 63 51 AA A0 48 89 2F
I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o
John Weiss
Simon H. Lee wrote:
>
> >Don't know if it's "THE" fastest, but the A-4 had 700-720 deg/sec,
> >depending on model.
>
> I thought that was the T-38 which had the 720?
Could be both. I've never flown the T-38, but in my 1700+ hours in the
A-4, I've bounced my helmet off the canopy enough times (and had
students do it to/for me) to confirm that it can do the 720.
Ed Rasimus
"Daren S. Sorenson" <da...@webnology.com> wrote:
>Does anyone know what aircraft, either Military or otherwise has the
>fastest roll rate ?
Many sources claim that the T-38 Talon has the fastest roll rate at
720 degrees per second.
The stick throw, left and right of center is approximately six inches.
The first 4.5 inches of displacement provides half the aileron
deflection and the final 1.5 inches gives the full deflection. The
operating manual lists "intentional" full deflection consecutive
aileron rolls as a prohibited maneuver because of the liklihood of
pilot disorientation. It further indicates that with full aileron
deflection it is probable that more than one roll will be accomplished
before the pilot can stop.
Full deflection rolls both left and right are part of the functional
check flight reguired maneuver list and are usually accomplished right
after the supersonic part of the profile and immediately before
sequential engine shutdown and restart above FL 350.
Ed Rasimus *** Peak Computing Magazine
Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
John Weiss
Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> "Daren S. Sorenson" <da...@webnology.com> wrote:
>
> Many sources claim that the T-38 Talon has the fastest roll rate at
> 720 degrees per second.
>
> The stick throw, left and right of center is approximately six inches.
> The first 4.5 inches of displacement provides half the aileron
> deflection and the final 1.5 inches gives the full deflection. The
> operating manual lists "intentional" full deflection consecutive
> aileron rolls as a prohibited maneuver because of the liklihood of
> pilot disorientation. It further indicates that with full aileron
> deflection it is probable that more than one roll will be accomplished
> before the pilot can stop.
>
> Full deflection rolls both left and right are part of the functional
> check flight reguired maneuver list and are usually accomplished right
> after the supersonic part of the profile and immediately before
> sequential engine shutdown and restart above FL 350.
The A-4's max roll rate required full stick plus [near] full rudder
deflection. There was no FCF requirement to check it -- only a
requirement to disconnect the hydraulic flight control system and check
the rate of roll difference between powered and manual controls in a
trimmed-for-powered-controls condition. Since there was no reconnect
ability inflight, landings were interesting if the wind happened to
shift or start gusting after that...
IIRC, the A-4 had a 720 degree limit on aileron rolls due to roll/yaw
coupling -- the airplane would attempt to swap ends if pressed. OTOH,
the Blue Angels used to do multiple continuous rolls in a vertical climb
in their show in the A-4. I suspect it worked because there was no G
component except straight down the longitudinal axis. It's likely they
left the rudder alone, too.
Ross Dillon
On Wed, 01 Oct 1997 17:38:07 GMT, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
>"Daren S. Sorenson" <da...@webnology.com> wrote:
>
>>Does anyone know what aircraft, either Military or otherwise has the
>>fastest roll rate ?
>
>Many sources claim that the T-38 Talon has the fastest roll rate at
>720 degrees per second.
>
>The stick throw, left and right of center is approximately six inches.
>The first 4.5 inches of displacement provides half the aileron
>deflection and the final 1.5 inches gives the full deflection. The
>operating manual lists "intentional" full deflection consecutive
>aileron rolls as a prohibited maneuver because of the liklihood of
>pilot disorientation. It further indicates that with full aileron
>deflection it is probable that more than one roll will be accomplished
>before the pilot can stop.
>
>Full deflection rolls both left and right are part of the functional
>check flight reguired maneuver list and are usually accomplished right
>after the supersonic part of the profile and immediately before
>sequential engine shutdown and restart above FL 350.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus *** Peak Computing Magazine
> Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
> *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
> *** (http://www.zdnet.com)
The trick also requires the jet to be unloaded i.e. close to zero g at
relatively high (subsonic) Mach - something around 0.9M.
Roscoe
USAF Flight Tester
(B-1, B-2, T-38, T-37, C-5, QF-106, F-16, F-5...)
------
To reply, please remove _no_spam from address
Ross Dillon
On 1 Oct 1997 07:13:34 GMT, fe...@crowfix.com (Felix Morley Finch)
wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:56:31 -0400, Mike Moore <m...@kodaki.kodak.com> scrawled:
>>Daren S. Sorenson wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone know what aircraft, either Military or otherwise has the
>>> fastest roll rate ?
>>
>>The T-38 was capable of 720 degress / sec at full stick deflection.
>
>I remember reading in AvLeak many years ago that the F-16 was
>artifically limited to 720/sec because any faster was bad for the
>pilot. But memory is foggy, etc...
Actually it is limited to something significantly less than that
(sorry, my memory fails me at the moment) - it was found that
excessively high roll rates serve no purpose whatsoever.
Ross Dillon
On Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:01:29 GMT, John Weiss
<John.R.Weiss@Boeing.*NOSPAM*.com> wrote:
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>> "Daren S. Sorenson" <da...@webnology.com> wrote:
>>
>> Many sources claim that the T-38 Talon has the fastest roll rate at
>> 720 degrees per second.
>>
>> The stick throw, left and right of center is approximately six inches.
>> The first 4.5 inches of displacement provides half the aileron
>> deflection and the final 1.5 inches gives the full deflection. The
>> operating manual lists "intentional" full deflection consecutive
>> aileron rolls as a prohibited maneuver because of the liklihood of
>> pilot disorientation. It further indicates that with full aileron
>> deflection it is probable that more than one roll will be accomplished
>> before the pilot can stop.
>>
>> Full deflection rolls both left and right are part of the functional
>> check flight reguired maneuver list and are usually accomplished right
>> after the supersonic part of the profile and immediately before
>> sequential engine shutdown and restart above FL 350.
>
>The A-4's max roll rate required full stick plus [near] full rudder
>deflection. There was no FCF requirement to check it -- only a
>requirement to disconnect the hydraulic flight control system and check
>the rate of roll difference between powered and manual controls in a
>trimmed-for-powered-controls condition. Since there was no reconnect
>ability inflight, landings were interesting if the wind happened to
>shift or start gusting after that...
>
>IIRC, the A-4 had a 720 degree limit on aileron rolls due to roll/yaw
>coupling -- the airplane would attempt to swap ends if pressed. OTOH,
>the Blue Angels used to do multiple continuous rolls in a vertical climb
>in their show in the A-4. I suspect it worked because there was no G
>component except straight down the longitudinal axis. It's likely they
>left the rudder alone, too.
Actually, the gravity vector has little to do with coupling. The
effect comes from the mass of the aircraft not being distributed about
its longitunal axis. Think of it as the majority of the nose being
above the center of gravity and the majority of the tail section being
below the CG. When rotated quickly, inertia makes the masses tend to
move away from the center of rotation (longitudinal axis), forcing the
nose more up and the tail more down. If continued, this can rapidly
cause a jet to "depart controlled flight".
John W. Alger
On Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:01:29 GMT, John Weiss
<John.R.Weiss@Boeing.*NOSPAM*.com> wrote:
>IIRC, the A-4 had a 720 degree limit on aileron rolls due to roll/yaw
>coupling -- the airplane would attempt to swap ends if pressed.
It also was limited to two complete revolutions for the stated
reasons. A capability that ALWAYS surprised/impressed the midshipmen
we took on fam rides during their summer training cruises! ;-0
John Weiss
Ross Dillon wrote:
> >
> >IIRC, the A-4 had a 720 degree limit on aileron rolls due to roll/yaw
> >the Blue Angels used to do multiple continuous rolls in a vertical climb
> >in their show in the A-4. I suspect it worked because there was no G
> >component except straight down the longitudinal axis. It's likely they
> >left the rudder alone, too.
>
> Actually, the gravity vector has little to do with coupling. The
> effect comes from the mass of the aircraft not being distributed about
> its longitunal axis. Think of it as the majority of the nose being
> above the center of gravity and the majority of the tail section being
> below the CG. When rotated quickly, inertia makes the masses tend to
> move away from the center of rotation (longitudinal axis), forcing the
> nose more up and the tail more down. If continued, this can rapidly
> cause a jet to "depart controlled flight".
OK. Does the AOA or incidence angle have anything to do with coupling
(low AOA delay/reduce its effects) in an airplane like the A-4?
Maury Markowitz
In article <EHFI0...@news.boeing.com>, John Weiss
<John.R.Weiss@Boeing.*NOSPAM*.com> wrote:
> > Actually, the gravity vector has little to do with coupling. The
> > effect comes from the mass of the aircraft not being distributed about
> > its longitunal axis. Think of it as the majority of the nose being
> > above the center of gravity and the majority of the tail section being
> > below the CG. When rotated quickly, inertia makes the masses tend to
> > move away from the center of rotation (longitudinal axis), forcing the
> > nose more up and the tail more down. If continued, this can rapidly
> > cause a jet to "depart controlled flight".
I was under the impression that the problem is more pronounced on planes
with certain layouts and wing planforms. Most of the times I've heard it
discussed is in relation to long skinny planes, the F-104 and various
deltas are the two I've heard specifically, and I remember an English
delta testbed aircraft designed to study it. What would cause this
problem to be more pronounced in these particular layouts?
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> > Actually, the gravity vector has little to do with coupling. The
> > effect comes from the mass of the aircraft not being distributed about
> > its longitunal axis. Think of it as the majority of the nose being
> > above the center of gravity and the majority of the tail section being
> > below the CG. When rotated quickly, inertia makes the masses tend to
> > move away from the center of rotation (longitudinal axis), forcing the
> > nose more up and the tail more down. If continued, this can rapidly
> > cause a jet to "depart controlled flight".
I'm sorry, I meant the X-3, not the 104.
Maury
David Hyde
Maury Markowitz (ma...@softarc.com) wrote:
> I was under the impression that the problem is more pronounced on
planes
>with certain layouts and wing planforms. Most of the times I've heard it
>discussed is in relation to long skinny planes
What folks are referring to is inertia coupling. The more 'fuselage
loaded', or long and skinny the airplane is, the larger the pitching
moment of inertia, Iyy, becomes relative to the other axes (Izz, Ixx).
The larger Iyy becomes (relative to Ixx and Izz), the larger the nose-up
moment as a result of roll and yaw in the same direction, like during a
coordinated roll. This coupling will show up as an uncommanded pitchup
during rolling, and in some cases the pitchup tendencies may be too much
for the controls to overcome.
As for 720 deg/sec in an A-4 or T-38, I've measured it in an instrumented
TA-4 (with empty wing tanks) and it was never greater than 400 deg/sec at
up to (IIRC) 500 KIAS. Because of the (now) 360 deg roll limit we never
reached steady-state, but the trend still indicated significantly less
than 700 deg/sec. The T-38 (clean) felt qualitatively slower, but that
may have been due to lower roll acceleration, not steady state rate. We
also measured the rate in the -38, and (again, IIRC) was also something
less than 400 deg/sec.
Dave 'scuffed canopy' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
Gun One
In article <610u1n$g35$3...@hecate.umd.edu>, na...@Glue.umd.edu (David Hyde) writes:
|> Maury Markowitz (ma...@softarc.com) wrote:
|>
|> > I was under the impression that the problem is more pronounced on
|> planes
|> >with certain layouts and wing planforms. Most of the times I've heard it
|> >discussed is in relation to long skinny planes
|>
|> What folks are referring to is inertia coupling. The more 'fuselage
|> loaded', or long and skinny the airplane is, the larger the pitching
|> moment of inertia, Iyy, becomes relative to the other axes (Izz, Ixx).
|> The larger Iyy becomes (relative to Ixx and Izz), the larger the nose-up
|> moment as a result of roll and yaw in the same direction, like during a
|> coordinated roll. This coupling will show up as an uncommanded pitchup
|> during rolling, and in some cases the pitchup tendencies may be too much
|> for the controls to overcome.
|>
Nauga is right on. In F-8 Crusader indoc, we were shown the effects of
inertial coupling by a demonstration involving a long, straight bar with
two bowling balls (if you will) attached to either end. As long as the
axis of rotation is coincident with the long, straight bar, you can spin
the set-up to your heart's content and nothing much happens. But put a
little angle of attack on the bar and angle the axis of rotation away from
the axis of the bar and the set-up will become dynamically unstable at
some particular rpm.
For that reason, the Crusader was limited to one 360-degree roll at max
aileron deflection at speeds above 350 knots (exact numbers subject to
hazy-memory accuracy).
gun one
Charles R. Galbach
> >fastest roll rate ?
>
> Many sources claim that the T-38 Talon has the fastest roll rate at
> 720 degrees per second.
>
> The stick throw, left and right of center is approximately six inches.
> The first 4.5 inches of displacement provides half the aileron
> deflection and the final 1.5 inches gives the full deflection. The
> operating manual lists "intentional" full deflection consecutive
> aileron rolls as a prohibited maneuver because of the liklihood of
> pilot disorientation. It further indicates that with full aileron
> deflection it is probable that more than one roll will be accomplished
> before the pilot can stop.
>
> Full deflection rolls both left and right are part of the functional
> check flight reguired maneuver list and are usually accomplished right
> after the supersonic part of the profile and immediately before
> sequential engine shutdown and restart above FL 350.
>
> Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
> *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
> *** (http://www.zdnet.com)
Having only flown the 38 in pilot training, I recall the prohibition
against continuous full deflection aileron rolls, but, as I recall, the
dash-1 specified 400 deg/sec at 500 kts ias. This may well have
translated into 720 deg/sec at 710 eas. I don't know. I may be
dreaming, but I also seem to recall that the problem involved possible
structural failure due to the centrifugal moment of the tail section of
the aircraft. I do not recall any mention of pilot disorientation at
that time.
Of course, it didn't take much time for us to find out if you pointed
her straight up, you could keep full stick until you got nervous about
the low airspeed. So then, the challenge was to get the highest roll
count before you ran out of speed. The first couple were hard to count
(quick). I don't recall how many you could get, but I don't believe it
was too many - maybe 4 or 5. These were not aimed at max roll rate, by
any means though, but they were fun to do. And in those days, if you
were in a VFR training area, you could do pretty much anything. It was
not unusual to see another 38 go spiraling straight up past you. In
level flight, it was really difficult to do a single max deflection roll
and end up anywhere close to zero bank, without cheating and slowing
down the rate. First couple tries, you might end up overshooting by
maybe 60-180 deg. (Common exchange: Student - did it go all the way
over? IP - Whoa, I've got it!)
Incidentally, the T-38 also supposedly had the world's rate of climb
record for a short while (few weeks) before the F-4's and the German
F-104's surpassed it. And, apparently, for several years it had the
world's rate of climb and several other records with a female pilot.
Chuck - 65G - T-37, T-38, C-124, C-141, A-1E, O-1, 0-2, C-123K, C-130A,
C-130H, Rocking Chair.
pilots@planet.net Dave Sutton
> "Charles R. Galbach" <galb...@westol.com> writes:
> Incidentally, the T-38 also supposedly had the world's rate of climb
> record for a short while (few weeks) before the F-4's and the German
> F-104's surpassed it. And, apparently, for several years it had the
> world's rate of climb and several other records with a female pilot.
Sure you don't have it confused with the MiG-21?? ;-)
Seems like those same records had been, or were later,
held by a modified one flown by a woman.
******************************************************************************************
David Sutton pil...@planet.net HTTP://www.planet.net/ppilots/
Red Star Aviation HTTP://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RedStarAviation.html
"Warbird Aviation: The Ultimate Motorsport" Yak-50, Fouga Magister, MiG-17
"Porsche: A Close Second" 911S, Euro-Spec 944
"Russian Ural Motorcycles: A Primitive Third" 1966 Sidecar, 1967 Solo
*******************************************************************************************
Ross Dillon
> I was under the impression that the problem is more pronounced on planes
>with certain layouts and wing planforms. Most of the times I've heard it
>discussed is in relation to long skinny planes, the F-104 and various
>deltas are the two I've heard specifically, and I remember an English
>delta testbed aircraft designed to study it. What would cause this
>problem to be more pronounced in these particular layouts?
>
>Maury
As you alluded to, depends on the mass distribution. If most of the
mass is in the wings (B-57, U-2), roll coupling will not occur. If
most of the mass is in the fuselage (T-38, F-104), roll coupling can
kill. The basic reason is the heaviest part of the aircraft will
force itself away from the axis of rotation. To get into (slightly)
technical terms, if the mass is mostly in the vertical plane (the
plane defined by the longitudinal and vertical axes), then rotation
will be about the lateral axis (thru the wings). If the mass is
mostly in the horizontal plane (the plane defined by the longitudinal
and lateral axes), then rotation will be about the vertical axis.
Charles R. Galbach
Ross Dillon wrote:
> >record for a short while (few weeks) before the F-4's and the German
> >F-104's surpassed it. And, apparently, for several years it had the
> >world's rate of climb and several other records with a female pilot.
> >
> >C-130H, Rocking Chair.
>
> required and the mass aligns well with the axis of rotation - no
> coupling will occur.
> Roscoe
> USAF Flight Tester
> (B-1, B-2, T-38, T-37, C-5, QF-106, F-16, F-5...)
> ------
> To reply, please remove _no_spam from address
Well, I guess that means my memory was correct, that potential
structural failure was of more concern than pilot disorientation (other
than students on their initial rolls)? Disorientation may be a factor as
well, but my fuzzy memory after 32 years was that the 38 would oscillate
in a widening arc about the nose during continuous rolls, risking
breaking the tail. Unloading the wings in vertical flight would mitigate
this, no doubt, but at the time, we thought it worked because of the
rapid decelleration and attendant slow down in roll rate. Shows the type
of quasi-logical thinking that students can engage in, I guess.
Thanks for the reply,
Chuck - 65G
Ross Dillon
On Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:50:10 GMT, John Weiss
<John.R.Weiss@Boeing.*NOSPAM*.com> wrote:
>Ross Dillon wrote:
>> >
>> >IIRC, the A-4 had a 720 degree limit on aileron rolls due to roll/yaw
>> >coupling -- the airplane would attempt to swap ends if pressed. OTOH,
>> >the Blue Angels used to do multiple continuous rolls in a vertical climb
>> >in their show in the A-4. I suspect it worked because there was no G
>> >component except straight down the longitudinal axis. It's likely they
>> >left the rudder alone, too.
>>
>> Actually, the gravity vector has little to do with coupling. The
>> effect comes from the mass of the aircraft not being distributed about
>> its longitunal axis. Think of it as the majority of the nose being
>> above the center of gravity and the majority of the tail section being
>> below the CG. When rotated quickly, inertia makes the masses tend to
>> move away from the center of rotation (longitudinal axis), forcing the
>> nose more up and the tail more down. If continued, this can rapidly
>> cause a jet to "depart controlled flight".
>
>OK. Does the AOA or incidence angle have anything to do with coupling
>(low AOA delay/reduce its effects) in an airplane like the A-4?
Not really, unless by coincidence (design? - hard to do) the AOA
forces the longitudinal inertial axis to line up with the axis of
rotation. Picture a dumbell, hold it vertical and rotate your wrist
rapidly - should be stable. Now, hold it vertical but then tip the
top away from you as far as you can (most people won't be able to tip
it such that it now is perfecly horizontal). Spin your wrist rapidly
now - the dumbell will try to become vertcal again due to mass and
inertial effects. That is roll coupling. The more the inertial axis
is off from the roll axis, the worse the effect will be.
Ross Dillon
Charles R. Galbach
> > record for a short while (few weeks) before the F-4's and the German
> > F-104's surpassed it. And, apparently, for several years it had the
> > world's rate of climb and several other records with a female pilot.
>
> Seems like those same records had been, or were later,
> held by a modified one flown by a woman.
>
> ******************************************************************************************
> David Sutton pil...@planet.net HTTP://www.planet.net/ppilots/
> Red Star Aviation HTTP://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RedStarAviation.html
>
> "Warbird Aviation: The Ultimate Motorsport" Yak-50, Fouga Magister, MiG-17
> "Porsche: A Close Second" 911S, Euro-Spec 944
> "Russian Ural Motorcycles: A Primitive Third" 1966 Sidecar, 1967 Solo
> *******************************************************************************************
Hi David - Well, I am getting to be somewhat of an old geezer, and I'm
the first one to admit my memory of 32 years ago is getting fuzzy. I am
pretty sure about the world's rate of climb record for the T-38 and the
fact that it was supposed to have been very short lived. I'm sorry I
cannot quote reliable source material. The one thing fairly certain is
that I didn't confuse it with the Mig 21. I'm not sure I ever knew or
heard much about Mig 21's. I was never an airplane nut. I learned a lot
about the ones I flew, and pretty much ignored the others.
The other item, the records by the female pilot, was gotten from a film
strip, probably from Northrup, showing a stripped T-38, or possibly F-5
(no paint, polished). I no longer remember the woman's name, but names
have always eluded me. I'm better at trivia. I have to admit, that,
although I saw the film and heard about the rate of climb and speed and
altitude records, I have no real idea how long these might have lasted
or if they were just a Northrup promo. The flights would probably have
been around 1963 or 1964, when the 38 was being initially tested and
deployed. I was at Reese, as a supply officer prior to entering pilot
training there. I think we received our T-38s about the end of 1963,
maybe a year before I began to fly them in pilot training.
Ross Dillon
On Sat, 04 Oct 1997 00:29:54 -0400, "Charles R. Galbach"
<galb...@westol.com> wrote:
>> >Incidentally, the T-38 also supposedly had the world's rate of climb
>> >record for a short while (few weeks) before the F-4's and the German
>> >F-104's surpassed it. And, apparently, for several years it had the
>> >world's rate of climb and several other records with a female pilot.
>> >
>> >Chuck - 65G - T-37, T-38, C-124, C-141, A-1E, O-1, 0-2, C-123K, C-130A,
>> >C-130H, Rocking Chair.
>>
>> The reason this works is because when going vertical no AOA is
>> required and the mass aligns well with the axis of rotation - no
>> coupling will occur.
>> Roscoe
>> USAF Flight Tester
>> (B-1, B-2, T-38, T-37, C-5, QF-106, F-16, F-5...)
>> ------
>> To reply, please remove _no_spam from address
>
>Well, I guess that means my memory was correct, that potential
>structural failure was of more concern than pilot disorientation (other
>than students on their initial rolls)? Disorientation may be a factor as
>well, but my fuzzy memory after 32 years was that the 38 would oscillate
>in a widening arc about the nose during continuous rolls, risking
>breaking the tail. Unloading the wings in vertical flight would mitigate
>this, no doubt, but at the time, we thought it worked because of the
>rapid decelleration and attendant slow down in roll rate. Shows the type
>of quasi-logical thinking that students can engage in, I guess.
>
>Thanks for the reply,
>Chuck - 65G
Forgot one small thing - structural failure of the tail was not the
problem - departure from controlled flight was. The T-38 cannot
(except by luck) be recovered from a spin, hence the warning.
Ross Dillon
>Dave Sutton wrote:
>>
>> > "Charles R. Galbach" <galb...@westol.com> writes:
>>
>> > Incidentally, the T-38 also supposedly had the world's rate of climb
>> > record for a short while (few weeks) before the F-4's and the German
>> > F-104's surpassed it. And, apparently, for several years it had the
>> > world's rate of climb and several other records with a female pilot.
>>
>Thanks for the reply,
>Chuck - 65G
Jacqueline Cochran set several women's records - most most visible -
in the T-38 with USAF support. That jet became a chase jet at
Sacramento Air Logistics Center and is now at the USAF museum.
That aircraft was unique by having a visibly different nose (shorter)
than the rest of the T-38 fleet.
John Parker
John Weiss <John.R.Weiss@Boeing.*NOSPAM*.com> wrote in article
<EHDqI...@news.boeing.com>...
I have flown fully instrumented A-4's and NEVER exceeded 265 deg/sec.
The 720 number came about via a typo on a Blue Angels PR release,
switching 270 into 720.
Ed Rasimus
ros...@ix.netcom.com (Ross Dillon) wrote:
--Entire thread up to this point SNIPPED---
>
>Forgot one small thing - structural failure of the tail was not the
>problem - departure from controlled flight was. The T-38 cannot
>(except by luck) be recovered from a spin, hence the warning.
>Roscoe
>USAF Flight Tester
>(B-1, B-2, T-38, T-37, C-5, QF-106, F-16, F-5...)
The possibility of inertial coupling through consecutive max
deflection aileron rolls in the T-38 was real, but not probable (IMHO)
unless the ham-fisted aviator in the loop were to induce quite a bit
of back pressure during the process. Reaching full stick deflection
was a task in itself and maintaining it during the rolling process was
even more of a chore.
As you correctly state, departure in a T-38 (spin in conventional
aircraft terms) is virtually unrecoverable. It also is virtually
unobtainable in normal operational use. The regular process of full
aft stick for a one-G stall with addition of yaw to create rotation
won't work--you get a falling leaf high descent rate stalled aircraft
with slow rudder rolls.
The few instances of spinning T-38s were generated (according to the
dash-1 description and the flight test generated film footage) by
departure after "full aft stick input at max rate"--this was done by
causing a PIO in which nose cycling was induced and then from a
negative G pitch-down, full aft stick was pulled as fast as possible.
Even then the inherent stability of the airplane precluded departure.
In fact, the Aggressors and many Fighter Lead-In instructors would
often use "nose pumping" as a means of threatening an adversary in ACM
engagement--exactly the inputs the -1 said would lead to departures.
Walt Shiel
Craig Good wrote:
>
> I spoke with an AF instructor at George AFB years ago who mentioned
> the 720 deg/sec rate for the T-38. He said his favorite thing to do
> to new "hot shot" students was ask for a brief stick deflection all
> the way to one side. The really good ones got it stopped in under
> three complete rolls. Nobody ended up right side up on the first try.
>
> Apparently the plane would roll almost that quickly with only rudder
> input under certain conditions, leading to a few fatalities on short
> final.
As an old T-38 IP, I can assure you that the T-38 can roll at a
phenomenal rate -- although whether the rate is actually 720 deg/sec,
faster, or a little slower is open to speculation. Northrop never
published the number and I've spoken to some Northrop engineers (guys
who ought to know and who worked on the original design) who claimed it
was actually somewhat faster. Whatever it is, it's damn fast.
Yes, the White Rocket can also do very nice rudder rolls, particularly
with the gear down. There's a rudder deflection limiter that is
effective UNLESS the gear is down. The Thunderbirds had to disable that
limiter to allow knife-edge flight for their shows -- the jet won't do
it otherwise (except maybe gear down).
Walt Shiel
g.al...@genie.com
Gents, the fastest roll rate I've ever seen claimed was one of 1000
deg./sec.
for the Douglas F4D Skyray. This was stated by Bill Gunston in his
book "Early
Supersonic Fighters of the West" (I think he was quoting Ed
Heinemann), and,
IIRR, was specifically claimed as the highest roll rate of any
fighter. I've
always wondered if this was a typo, and should have been 100 deg./sec.
rather
than 1000. OTOH, Bill also mentions 720deg./sec for the A-4 in many
of his
books, and E.H. would certainly know about both;-)
I've seen the A-4, F-5/T-38, and F-104 all credited with rates of
around
720deg./sec, as has been discussed. Not that these rates were
necessary or
usable in combat.
One article I have by a Canadian F-104 driver stated that no one ever
did more
than one max stick deflection roll. Aside from being limited for
inertial
coupling reasons (as are most jet fighter a/c, including the
F-15/F-16), the
pilot stated that half deflection was more than enough, and would have
you
upside down with the thought. Since 180 deg. is about the maximum
you'd ever
need to roll fast in combat, anything beyond that is somewhat
academic.
Roll inertia and accel is probably more important, since virtually any
modern
jet fighter has a max. roll of 180 deg./sec. or greater (the F-18 had
problems
early on). There's lots of footage showing F-5s giving F-15s fits
during guns
defense maneuvers, as the F-15 can't keep up with the F-5s roll rate
(continually going 90 degrees out of plane). Of course, that's
defensive, not
offensive.
Guy
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Maury Markowitz
In article <343a3ab6...@news.rmi.net>, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
wrote:
> The possibility of inertial coupling through consecutive max
> deflection aileron rolls in the T-38 was real, but not probable (IMHO)
> unless the ham-fisted aviator in the loop were to induce quite a bit
> of back pressure during the process. Reaching full stick deflection
> was a task in itself and maintaining it during the rolling process was
> even more of a chore.
In another thread we were discussing the F-101's stick kicker, but we
got into that from a quote I heard from a former 101 pilot that the plane
"wanted to swap ends". Could he be referring to roll coupling? The 101
does have a lot of stuff way out in front of the wings, although the
engines are more mid-set.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> Gents, the fastest roll rate I've ever seen claimed was one of 1000
> deg./sec.
> for the Douglas F4D Skyray. This was stated by Bill Gunston in his
> book "Early
> Supersonic Fighters of the West" (I think he was quoting Ed
> Heinemann), and,
> IIRR, was specifically claimed as the highest roll rate of any
> fighter. I've
> always wondered if this was a typo, and should have been 100 deg./sec.
If I'm not mistaken, the FW's, 38L's and F4U's could all get close to
100deg/sec (I have the figures somewhere, I can dig them out if anyone's
interested), so I doubt it's a mistake in that regard.
Maury
Roderic Don
In article <maury-08109...@199.166.204.230>, ma...@softarc.com
(Maury Markowitz) wrote:
Modern unlimited aerobatic aircraft (Extra, Sukhoi, CAP, Giles, Pitts,
etc.) get up in the 400 to 500 degs/sec range. I have a quarter-scale
radio controlled Extra 300S that will snap at about that rate also. If the
"Ford" could get it around twice that quick, must have been a hell of a
neck-snapper!
I do recall the Skyray prototypes had some interesting pitch problems on
the early flights.
Rod
--
Roderic Don
Research Associate II
Center for Composite Materials
University of Delaware
302-831-8352
SIRIUS
Maury Markowitz <ma...@softarc.com> wrote in article
<maury-08109...@199.166.204.230>...
> In article <8762614...@dejanews.com>, g.al...@genie.com wrote:
>
> > Gents, the fastest roll rate I've ever seen claimed was one of 1000
> > deg./sec.
> > for the Douglas F4D Skyray. This was stated by Bill Gunston in his
> > book "Early
> > Supersonic Fighters of the West" (I think he was quoting Ed
> > Heinemann), and,
> > IIRR, was specifically claimed as the highest roll rate of any
> > fighter. I've
> > always wondered if this was a typo, and should have been 100 deg./sec.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the FW's, 38L's and F4U's could all get close to
> 100deg/sec (I have the figures somewhere, I can dig them out if anyone's
> interested), so I doubt it's a mistake in that regard.
>
> Maury
>
How did 1000 deg/sec become 100 deg/sec?
--
Jeff Rankin-Lowe
Zir...@wwdc.com
>>>>>To reply, replace Z with s in "Zirius"<<<<<
Ross Dillon
While we are talking "swapping ends" (yes - a result of roll coupling)
I heard a funny story involving F-8s.
Seems the early F-8's had a significant roll coupling problem before
strakes were added to the aircraft. Before that time, a couple of
Navy jet-jocks were out in the Crusaders and mixing it up a bit. At
one point "2" had lead in his sights for a gun shot. Lead, not
willing to lose to his lesser-experienced wingman attempted to reef it
around while rolling hard. The aircraft, as it is told, swapped ends
with flame coming out both ends. "2", alarmed, called "Knock It
Off!!" whereupon lead replied "negative, as soon as I get this bastard
turned back around I'm goin' to kick your ass!!"
Nothing like confidence....
Roscoe
USAF Flight Tester
(B-1, B-2, T-38, T-37, C-5, QF-106, F-16, F-5...)
Dean
Hmmm,
How long ago was this?
I seem to remember rudder rolls being part of our syllabus when I trained in
T-38's in '94. It was all part of the aircraft handling characteristics
including loaded v. unloaded rudder rolls and aileron rolls, to show the
different characteristics.
Dean
Ed Rasimus wrote in message <343b9608...@news.rmi.net>...
>Craig Good <but...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>>Apparently the plane would roll almost that quickly with only rudder
>>input under certain conditions, leading to a few fatalities on short
>>final.
>
>Rudder rolls are a function of angle of attack in most high
>performance aircraft. In other words, you have to have the airplane
>"loaded" up to rudder roll it. The T-38 will certainly rudder roll,
>but most UPT students never encounter it, and most FAIPs don't even
>know about the capability.
>
>Rudder rolls were a syllabus of instruction item at Fighter Lead-In
>training where the manuever could be used extensively in low speed
>BFM. Roll rates, even under optimum conditions, don't approximate
>aileron roll rates.
>
>The T-38 has a rudder limiter that restricts rudder deflection when
>the gear is UP, primarily as a safeguard against structural damage
>from full rudder deflection maneuvering at high speed. With the gear
>down, full rudder deflection is available for approach speed
>manuevering, but unless the student on "short final" had the aircraft
>aerodynamically stalled, you wouldn't see a rudder roll.
Ross Dillon
In the T-38, rudder rolls at low speed are the prefered method among
the instructors.
For interest, as Ed has stated, the roll limiter was not in place when
the gear is extended. During flight testing, we often required steady
heading slideslip test points. This is executed by applying opposite
rudder from some roll inputs. Very uncomfortable falling to the side
of the cockpit as the aircraft would point left, roll right, but
tracxk straight. With the gear down and the limiter disabled, the
aircraft at a certain point would suddenly flip on its back and drop
like a rock. Very sporty...
Walt Shiel
Dean wrote:
>
> How long ago was this?
>
> I seem to remember rudder rolls being part of our syllabus when I trained in
> T-38's in '94. It was all part of the aircraft handling characteristics
> including loaded v. unloaded rudder rolls and aileron rolls, to show the
> different characteristics.
>
Well, let's see now...
When I completed UPT in 1970, I distinctly recall doing some rudder
rolls. Whether that was actually a syllabus maneuver, I don't recall.
We did quite a few things back then that were most definitely NOT in the
syllabus.
When I was a T-38 IP in 1982-85, I KNOW I did rudder rolls with students
but, again, this may not have been listed in the syllabus. There were
several things I liked to show my students that were not blessed by the
syllabus but I felt were necessary for them to really understand the
aircraft. Rudder rolls might have been in the syllabus, I just don't
remember.
Walt Shiel
--
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Author: "Cessna Warbirds, A Detailed and Personal History of
Cessna's Involvement in the Armed Forces" (ISBN 1-879825-25-2)
For Ordering: mailto:Walt....@reporters.net
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
John Weiss
On 10/9/97 3:09PM, in message <343d54e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Ross Dillon
<ros...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In the T-38, rudder rolls at low speed are the prefered method among
the instructors.
Ditto for the A-4. For low-speed maneuvering, using rudder alone for roll
control, keeping the stick solidly in the center, was one way to help prevent
departing and spinning (and fly slower than your adversary in a flat scissors).
At high AOA the ailerons were much more spin-inducing than the rudder. In a
"falling leaf" departure, keeping the stick centered was mandatory to keep from
deteriorating into a spin.
--
John Weiss, Seattle, WA
http://www.seanet.com/~jrweiss/tsca-puget/
Auto-spamtrap -- FCC Chair: Reed Hundt, rhu...@fcc.gov; Members: James Quello,
jqu...@fcc.gov; Susan Ness, sn...@fcc.gov; Rachelle Chong, rch...@fcc.gov
Barry Fortier
In article <8762614...@dejanews.com>,
g.al...@genie.com wrote:
>
> Gents, the fastest roll rate I've ever seen claimed was one of 1000
> deg./sec.
> for the Douglas F4D Skyray. This was stated by Bill Gunston in his
> book "Early
> Supersonic Fighters of the West" (I think he was quoting Ed
> Heinemann)
The target roll rate for the skyray was 500 deg./sec or better, so
Gunstons reference to the 1000 deg rate was probably not out of line, as
the chapter in the book you refered to sumarized. Sort of a status
symbol, I guess.
Good post
Barry F.
Talo...@aol.com
Walt Shiel wrote:>Dean wrote:
>>
>> How long ago was this?
>>
>> I seem to remember rudder rolls being part of our syllabus when I trained in
>> T-38's in '94. It was all part of the aircraft handling characteristics
>> including loaded v. unloaded rudder rolls and aileron rolls, to show the
>> different characteristics.
>>
>
>Well, let's see now...
>
>When I completed UPT in 1970, I distinctly recall doing some rudder
>rolls. Whether that was actually a syllabus maneuver, I don't recall.
>We did quite a few things back then that were most definitely NOT in the
>syllabus.
>
>When I was a T-38 IP in 1982-85, I KNOW I did rudder rolls with students
>but, again, this may not have been listed in the syllabus. There were
>several things I liked to show my students that were not blessed by the
>syllabus but I felt were necessary for them to really understand the
>aircraft. Rudder rolls might have been in the syllabus, I just don't
>remember.
>
>Walt Shiel
>--
Carlo Kopp
Ross Dillon wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:23:54 -0700, "Dean"
>
> In the T-38, rudder rolls at low speed are the prefered method among
> the instructors.
>
> the gear is extended. During flight testing, we often required steady
> heading slideslip test points. This is executed by applying opposite
> rudder from some roll inputs. Very uncomfortable falling to the side
> of the cockpit as the aircraft would point left, roll right, but
> tracxk straight. With the gear down and the limiter disabled, the
> aircraft at a certain point would suddenly flip on its back and drop
> like a rock. Very sporty...
> Roscoe
> USAF Flight Tester
> (B-1, B-2, T-38, T-37, C-5, QF-106, F-16, F-5...)
Sounds a little like pushing a sideslip just a bit too far. Does the
right wing actually stall when the '38 flicks over ? Can you roll
through this maneouvre once inverted, with rudder applied, or does the
rudder have to be neutral to recover ?
This is really interesting stuff 8-D
Carlo
Ross Dillon
We actually do this at reasonable airspeeds so following the sudden
"yeehaw" maneuver the airplane is quite flyable - just inverted.
Roscoe
USAF Flight Tester
(B-1, B-2, T-38, T-37, C-5, QF-106, F-16, F-5...)
john...@bellsouth.net
Daryl
> F-16 nowhere close to T-38 (flew both). And aircraft with wider wingspans were slower.
>
why since I never flew one but it appears to be the greatest eyeball to
eyeball dogfighter ever made.
John Weiss
> F-16 nowhere close to T-38 (flew both). And aircraft with wider
wingspans were slower.
Jeff Crowell
>> F-16 nowhere close to T-38 (flew both). And aircraft with wider
>> wingspans were slower.
> And upgraded and updated F-5 is still a mean little ship. I don't know
> why since I never flew one but it appears to be the greatest eyeball to
> eyeball dogfighter ever made.
airplanes which share only the silhouette). Also flew the A-4.
Both would pretty well dump your internal gyro at max roll
rate--for the A-4, an instantaneous roll rate of 720 degrees/sec.
I believe, by the book, that the F-5 was the same.
However (here's where the rhubarb starts), if we're talking day
VFR knife fights (heaters and guns only), I would never take the
Tiger over a Friggin' Falcon (which pains me greatly, being a Navy
man). Had the F-20 become a reality, it might have boasted a
similar energy recovery rate to that of the F-16, but the F-5 just
doesn't have it. The Plastic Bug (Hornet) is pretty damn good too.
My complaint about the F-16 is that the driver isn't a pilot, just
a Voting Member. :-)
Jeff
--
Rules of Flying:
You know you've landed with the wheels up if it takes
afterburners to taxi back to the ramp.
Daryl
the CEO,'
John Weiss
>> My complaint about the F-16 is that the driver isn't a pilot, just
>> a Voting Member. :-)
>
> the CEO,'
Andrew Chaplin
email.me:
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
martyd...@gmail.com
> Does anyone know what aircraft, either Military or otherwise has the
> fastest roll rate ?
>
> Thanks
Giles 202 at 600 degrees per sec. II do it all the time
martyd...@gmail.com
John Weiss
>> Does anyone know what aircraft, either Military or otherwise has the
>> fastest roll rate ?
T-38 Talon - 700 deg/sec