The Myth of Impossible Endless Looping

[funked]

Spitboy dug up this info:

 

While a student preparing for the ministry at Wake Forest College (now University), Belvin Maynard became attracted to flying and he pursued both interests with equal vigor. At the outbreak of World War I he enlisted in the Army Signal Corps, using his skills as aviator and mechanic as a test pilot for DeHavilland aeroplanes at Romorantin, France. Here he set a world record for loop-the-loops, performing 318 without losing altitude. In 1917-1918 he tested over 100 aeroplanes, analyzed their performance and cleared them for combat duty.

Jan. 24, 1919. Army Air Service pilot 1st Lt. Temple M. Joyce makes 300 consecutive loops in a Morane fighter at Issoudun, France.

May 3, 1930. Laura Ingalls performs 344 consecutive loops. Shortly afterward, she tries again and does 980. In another flight during 1930, she does 714 barrel rolls, setting a pair of records that few people have cared to challenge.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-11-2001).]

[Toad]

Obviously, the planes were overmodeled by the respective manufacturers.

What's your point?

 

[funked]

 

The Oregon Aviation Museum has completed arrangements to acquire and restore the "Rankin Special" Great Lakes biplane, NX315Y, which crashed in the mid- sixties. After languishing for many years in a Pennsylvania junkyard, this famous aircraft was "found" by a Great Lakes enthusiast, and will be transported to Oregon when weather permits.

When NX315Y left the Great Lakes factory in 1931, it had been built with aerobatics in mind, and was registered as NC315Y. As Tex wrote later, it was not "the stock job". Late in 1931 Tex set the long-standing record of 131 consecutive outside loops in NC315Y, an amazing feat for an aircraft licensed in the standard category with a 100 h.p. engine.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-11-2001).]

[funked]

 

Because of their limitations, gliders could not hope to compete with records such as the 1433 consecutive loops tht the late "Speed" Holman performed above the St. Paul Airport during a five-hour session back in 1928.  

[funked]

Hmm it can be done in a 100 hp biplane by a girl, but if a 2000 hp fighter that is three generations more advanced does it, then it's a "UFO".  

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-11-2001).]

[Jekyll]

 

Originally posted by funked:
Hmm it can be done in a 100 hp biplane by a girl, but if a 2000 hp fighter that is three generations more advanced does it, then it's a "UFO".    

Hmm.. wonder what the wing loading on that biplane might have been funked?  You think THAT may just have anything to do with it?

[GRUNHERZ]

Do modern fighters loop endlessly? They often have 1+ thrust to weight ration, especially the light ones at the airshows, so they should be able to do it. They are what 4-5 generations ahead of the niki?  

BTW I really am asking if modern fiters can loop endlesly, I really have no info one wat or another.

[funked]

Wingloading doesn't have much to do with it.  It's all about specific excess power, of which a N1K or Spitfire has a hell of a lot more than a 100 hp biplane.

And yes a modern fighter like F-16 or F-15 can loop endlessly.

The limiting factors are fuel and the pilot.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-11-2001).]

[Bombjack]

You just watch funked, someone's going to say "yeah, but a WW2 plane is heavier than a biplane" here too  

[juzz]

"The limiting factors are fuel and the pilot."

So the UFO niki's are actually filled with anti-matter fuel, and flown by aliens?!  

And that Laura Ingalls had helium-filled breast implants!

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 05-11-2001).]

[funked]

LOL Bombjack you bastich!!!

[Pongo]

Thanks for the info funked. I seem to remember people saying that the niki could do this and climb... if so is that justified?

[Karnak]

Pongo,
It barely climbs, and besides, you can do it in many of the aircraft in AH.

I've done it in a P-51D and a La-5FN.  The P-51D hasn't got anywhere near the power to weight ratio of the N1K2-J.

If looping and climbing means the N1K2-J's FM is messed up, the P-51D's is truely screwed.

The only difference between endlessly looping and climbing while endlessly looping is how much extra power you have available.  The N1K2-J seems to specialize in having extra power available.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak

[Vulcan]

Heres a question from the inbred corner.

A few educated people say what the niki does is very very feasible, especially as it has more thrust to weight. Specifically it has a big mother engine and a light airframe.

I follow this so far.

Where I don't follow is in two areas... the first is torque - I got no idea how much so I'll leave that to the other fellas  .

The second is airframe strength. There are only a couple of aircraft that can follow my tiffie through some of its dives and not rip apart. Some that can't are P-51s, P-47s, and F4's. These all come apart at high speeds. Then theres the niki, it can follow me through a 480plus kias dive and pull out like it don't care.

Question is: how can it be so light and stronger than the likes of jugs? Should it also compress like a 109? IE I would think a light airframe would either rip apart or pull itself out of a hard out dive?

[Tac]

do not question the superiority of alien design.

black suited men will knock on your door...soon.