4 ms·

No, a barrel roll is different to an aileron roll. The wikipedia article linked to shows the difference. A barrel roll requires heading and altitude changes,

No, a barrel roll is different to an aileron roll. The wikipedia article linked to shows the difference. A barrel roll requires heading and altitude changes, an aileron roll should not.

agumonkey 11y ago
Yeah it's was confusing, an aileron roll wouldn't allow for this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMWxuKcD6vE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMWxuKcD6vE (posted above). Unless you rotate faster than gravity pulling the water down.
cpncrunch 11y ago
Yes, the are different. However what the OP is pointing out is that Tex actually did an aileron roll and not a barrel roll. (Watch the video and it's pretty obvious).
- mikeash 11y ago
  I watched the video and it looks like a barrel roll to me. The airplane doesn't maintain altitude nor heading. Also that engineer who took a photo while kneeling next to a window would have been on the ceiling at that point if it had been an aileron roll.
  - cpncrunch 11y ago
    If you look at 1:56 on the AviationExplorer video you'll see there is little or no pitch change, so it couldn't be a barrel roll. I'm not sure how you can tell that it's heading is changing from that video. According to wikipedia "An aircraft performing an aileron roll will actually fly along a slightly helical path, and a very light, positive g force will be maintained" so the photographer wouldn't have been on the ceiling.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I don't know which AviationExplorer video you're referring to, but there's supposedly only one video of the maneuver so I assume the one in the article is the same thing. I see quite a large pitch change there. The aircraft starts more or less level, then pulls up. While inverted it begins to move substantially nose down. As for heading, at the beginning of the video it's pointed well to the left, and at the end of the maneuver the fuselage is lined up with the camera. Wikipedia is confused or imprecise. Either that "positive g force" refers to the force on the aircraft relative to the Earth, or it's just wrong. Reading through the original reference that statement comes from, I believe it's the former. The book says: "...we have managed to substantially increase the angle of attack, to a point where the inverted wing is capable of maintaining altitude." If you're maintaining altitude while inverted, you're not pulling positive gees relative to the airplane, but you are pulling positive gees relative to the Earth. You can browse most of the chapter on aileron rolls in the book in question on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Aerobatics-Geza-Szurovy/dp/0070629269 http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Aerobatics-Geza-Szurovy/dp/00706...
      - cpncrunch 11y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk See around 1:56. No significant heading or pitch changes that I can see, although it is difficult to tell because the camera is so far away.

No, a barrel roll is different to an aileron roll. The wikipedia article linked to shows the difference. A barrel roll requires heading and altitude changes, an aileron roll should not.

agumonkey 11y ago

Yeah it's was confusing, an aileron roll wouldn't allow for this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMWxuKcD6vE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMWxuKcD6vE (posted above). Unless you rotate faster than gravity pulling the water down.

cpncrunch 11y ago

Yes, the are different. However what the OP is pointing out is that Tex actually did an aileron roll and not a barrel roll. (Watch the video and it's pretty obvious).

mikeash 11y ago
I watched the video and it looks like a barrel roll to me. The airplane doesn't maintain altitude nor heading. Also that engineer who took a photo while kneeling next to a window would have been on the ceiling at that point if it had been an aileron roll.
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  If you look at 1:56 on the AviationExplorer video you'll see there is little or no pitch change, so it couldn't be a barrel roll. I'm not sure how you can tell that it's heading is changing from that video. According to wikipedia "An aircraft performing an aileron roll will actually fly along a slightly helical path, and a very light, positive g force will be maintained" so the photographer wouldn't have been on the ceiling.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I don't know which AviationExplorer video you're referring to, but there's supposedly only one video of the maneuver so I assume the one in the article is the same thing. I see quite a large pitch change there. The aircraft starts more or less level, then pulls up. While inverted it begins to move substantially nose down. As for heading, at the beginning of the video it's pointed well to the left, and at the end of the maneuver the fuselage is lined up with the camera. Wikipedia is confused or imprecise. Either that "positive g force" refers to the force on the aircraft relative to the Earth, or it's just wrong. Reading through the original reference that statement comes from, I believe it's the former. The book says: "...we have managed to substantially increase the angle of attack, to a point where the inverted wing is capable of maintaining altitude." If you're maintaining altitude while inverted, you're not pulling positive gees relative to the airplane, but you are pulling positive gees relative to the Earth. You can browse most of the chapter on aileron rolls in the book in question on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Aerobatics-Geza-Szurovy/dp/0070629269 http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Aerobatics-Geza-Szurovy/dp/00706...
    - cpncrunch 11y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk See around 1:56. No significant heading or pitch changes that I can see, although it is difficult to tell because the camera is so far away.