The plane survived but it was not certified or engineered to do a barrell-roll - it was foolish. I do not know specific limitation of the aircraft other than there was grave concern the engine mounts would fail. It may have been the mounts were not designed for compression force. In normal flight the mounts would never be exposed to compression. In inverted flight it becomes a possibility if not a certainty.
On 29 Oct 2018, at 11:20 am, '.' eruttan@yahoo.com [harryproa] <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au> wrote:I might be totally wrong, but a barrel roll is a smooth 1g maneuver. There is simply no lower risk maneuver. Its the same level of stress as any decent coordinated turn. Landings are much greater risk/stress.
If a design engineer has a problem with a roll, he is an idiot. The engine mounts will see way less force in a roll than any landing. Not to mention a crabbed landing.
Afaik, there exists virtually no aircraft that cannot perform a roll. Well, lighter than air craft excluded. Experimental Gyroplane guys do them all the time too.
__._,_.___
Posted by: Rick Willoughby <rickwill@bigpond.net.au>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a new topic | • | Messages in this topic (31) |
SPONSORED LINKS
.