Author Topic: Lancasters Turnfighting?  (Read 3802 times)

Offline Shuffler

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27216
Re: Lancasters Turnfighting?
« Reply #45 on: June 11, 2012, 02:24:00 PM »
hmm I got a rule 4. Wish I could remember what I said.

Did not mean to bust a rule.   :(
80th FS "Headhunters"

S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning In A Bottle)

Offline Mace2004

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
      • TrackIR 4.0
Re: Lancasters Turnfighting?
« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2012, 06:25:00 PM »
The question would be how many negative G should the lancaster tolerate before losing a wing in game.
That is A question but certainly not THE question.  Negative G is hardly ever used and when it is, you'll only see a fraction of the positive G used.  Most fighters are rated at about a third of their positive G rating and they may hit -1G in a fight and that's very, very rare.  It's extremely rare to do any more then that and that's usually because you've scared the crap out of yourself with a near midair and your only choice is to push away or smash into someone.  In the game, you see negative G way more often but then it's a game and your eyes don't pop out of your head and you don't bleed from the ears from doing it.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 07:37:56 PM by Mace2004 »
Mace
Golden Gryphon Guild Mercenary Force G3-MF

                                                                                          

Offline MK-84

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Lancasters Turnfighting?
« Reply #47 on: June 11, 2012, 07:51:27 PM »
That is A question but certainly not THE question.  Negative G is hardly ever used and when it is, you'll only see a fraction of the positive G used.  Most fighters are rated at about a third of their positive G rating and they may hit -1G in a fight and that's very, very rare.  It's extremely rare to do any more then that and that's usually because you've scared the crap out of yourself with a near midair and your only choice is to push away or smash into someone.  In the game, you see negative G way more often but then it's a game and your eyes don't pop out of your head and you don't bleed from the ears from doing it.

GHI...but I'm on to him...

Offline icepac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7174
Re: Lancasters Turnfighting?
« Reply #48 on: June 12, 2012, 09:01:24 AM »
My point is that lancasters will shed thier wings with very little negative G loading..........possibly less than -1g.

I don't see this modeled in game.

If you guys have seen the fire fighting planes who lose thier wings after dropping, then you have seen what negative G will do to wings of a bomber, transport, or cargo plane.

« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 09:04:17 AM by icepac »

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15678
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Lancasters Turnfighting?
« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2012, 12:18:09 PM »
My point is that lancasters will shed thier wings with very little negative G loading..........possibly less than -1g.

I would bet that a Lancaster could do more than -1 g.  Even a civilian utility-rated aircraft can do more than -1 g.

Also, the Lancaster could carry a very large bomb load and had a very strong wing.  Once those bombs are gone, I'd bet that the structure could take a lot of g's.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 12:24:16 PM by Brooke »

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Lancasters Turnfighting?
« Reply #50 on: June 12, 2012, 01:14:29 PM »
lancasters will shed thier wings with very little negative G loading..........possibly less than -1g.

sources?

I don't see this modeled in game.

film? you have tested this thoroughly offline I assume, exactly how many -g does it take to lose the wings?
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Lancasters Turnfighting?
« Reply #51 on: June 12, 2012, 02:34:52 PM »
My point is that lancasters will shed thier wings with very little negative G loading..........possibly less than -1g.

I don't see this modeled in game.

I've read quite a lot about WWII aviation and while it hasn't been Lancaster focused at all I'd still like to see some supporting evidence for this claim as I've never caught a whiff of it.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Mace2004

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
      • TrackIR 4.0
Re: Lancasters Turnfighting?
« Reply #52 on: June 12, 2012, 05:39:07 PM »
If you guys have seen the fire fighting planes who lose thier wings after dropping, then you have seen what negative G will do to wings of a bomber, transport, or cargo plane.
I agree that the Lanc should certainly be able to take more than -1G without failing.  Regarding the water bombers, I've never seen film of one of them failing due to negative G, every single one I've seen has failed due to extreme positive G (well, except for those that hit trees, dirt or water first)
« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 05:44:33 PM by Mace2004 »
Mace
Golden Gryphon Guild Mercenary Force G3-MF

                                                                                          

Offline icepac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7174
Re: Lancasters Turnfighting?
« Reply #53 on: June 12, 2012, 06:41:52 PM »
What you saw was negative G induced by the pilot who applied forward yoke when the plane surged upward.

I don't think any heavy bomber could tolerage more than 1.5 negative G.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 06:43:32 PM by icepac »

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11619
      • Trainer's Website
Re: Lancasters Turnfighting?
« Reply #54 on: June 12, 2012, 07:16:58 PM »
It's interesting that the Lancaster design specification was originally for a twin engine bomber capable of dive bombing. Here's a link which shows some construction details.

http://www.avrosys.demon.co.uk/bomber/airframe.htm

And a diagram of the aircraft.

http://www.avrosys.demon.co.uk/bomber/specifications.htm

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15678
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Lancasters Turnfighting?
« Reply #55 on: June 12, 2012, 07:45:56 PM »
What you saw was negative G induced by the pilot who applied forward yoke when the plane surged upward.

I'm with Mace on this (not that he knows much about real airplanes, that noob!  ;) ) -- I've only ever seen video of them pulling too many positive g's.  Like this:

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

Who knows -- maybe there are some that pushed too many negative g's, but I suspect that it is quite rare compared to too many positive g's.

Quote
I don't think any heavy bomber could tolerage more than 1.5 negative G.

But what is that thought based on?  I think they probably could take more than that just because of the strength needed to carry bombs and be able to take g's.  But even -1.5 is plenty for maneuvering, and irrelevant to how well a Lancaster turns.

Offline Mace2004

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
      • TrackIR 4.0
Re: Lancasters Turnfighting?
« Reply #56 on: June 12, 2012, 08:00:31 PM »
What you saw was negative G induced by the pilot who applied forward yoke when the plane surged upward.
You are mistaken, there is no negative G at all and there's plenty of evidence it's all positive G.

First, there is no way on God's green Earth that a pilot will push the nose over that hard, that close to the ground. Second, there's no reason to. Who cares if you balloon after you drop?  Third, ballooning after dropping a load is pretty darn minor, and certainly not a reason to stuff the stick forward. What are you going to run into if you balloon? Air.  What will you hit if you stuff the nose down? Rock. Air beats rock. .

All that stuff aside, look at the scenario. In every video I've ever seen of this the water bomber is either descending over a ridge line before the drop, climbing over a ridgeline after the drop or both.  He does this because fires happen in very inconvienent places and he has to be very low over the fire otherwise the water spreads too much and does little good.  In all of these scenarios, his primary concern is to not hit the ground. In some circumstances he may use some pressure on the stick to keep the nose from pitching up but most likely he's pulling.

Last. Again, in every video I've seen the wings fold up, not down. Proof positive it's positive G. If you have one showing the wings folding down I'd love to see it. As I said before, the only time a pilot would intentionally come remotely near his negative G limit is if he's avoiding a midair or in some extreme aerobatics.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 08:22:07 PM by Mace2004 »
Mace
Golden Gryphon Guild Mercenary Force G3-MF

                                                                                          

Offline Mace2004

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
      • TrackIR 4.0
Re: Lancasters Turnfighting?
« Reply #57 on: June 12, 2012, 08:45:33 PM »
I've only ever seen video of them pulling too many positive g's.  Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfpwsSIOQck
I remember seeing that video.  If I remember correctly it suffered from fatigue cracks at the wing roots and they just pulled off when the pilot started to pull up after the drop.  Not surprising considering the age of the plane (built in the 50's) and the heavy load, high G environment it was flown in.
Mace
Golden Gryphon Guild Mercenary Force G3-MF

                                                                                          

Offline icepac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7174
Re: Lancasters Turnfighting?
« Reply #58 on: June 13, 2012, 12:03:57 AM »
My dad's been along for a few of those drops and he discussed the dangers with me as well as what he experienced at the moment of dropping.

He was tempted to do it for a living after he retired from delta.

Go over the basic physics and you will surely see negative G in the flight profile of at least two of the filmed crashes where both wings departed at the same time.

When faced with the opinions of this board vs my dad's opinions, I will side with dad.

His experience level and flight time in combat, civilian, and commercial aviation is way beyond what most will ever accomplish in aviation.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2012, 12:15:05 AM by icepac »

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Lancasters Turnfighting?
« Reply #59 on: June 13, 2012, 01:42:16 AM »
My dad's been along for a few of those drops and he discussed the dangers with me as well as what he experienced at the moment of dropping.

He was tempted to do it for a living after he retired from delta.

Go over the basic physics and you will surely see negative G in the flight profile of at least two of the filmed crashes where both wings departed at the same time.

When faced with the opinions of this board vs my dad's opinions, I will side with dad.

His experience level and flight time in combat, civilian, and commercial aviation is way beyond what most will ever accomplish in aviation.
That still doesn't support your claim that the Lancaster, a warplane designed for maneuvering, would shed its wings with any negative G forces.

A quote from one of my books:
"As early as 27 January, only 18 days from first flight, the first prototype was delivered to the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down, where it received the best assessment ever awarded a new aircraft, beginning: "This aeroplane is eminently suitable for operational service.""

You'll need to do better than reference the crashes of some aged fire fighting tankers when claiming that the Lancaster, not the B-17, B-24, B-25, B-29 or A-20/Boston, should lose its wings when applying less than -1 Gs.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-