Vulcan barrel roll?

[Head in the clouds.]

Just trying to catch up but what became of the complaint by a Grantham man regarding the Vulcan supposedly doing a barrel roll near Grantham? I have not seen any outcome to the inquiry and am curious.

Thanks for any replies.

Gary.

[Steve Coombs]

Whatever the verdict, the misery-guts can, sadly, rest assured that it won't happen again.

[vtecjack]

The result was

[Phil32]

If the Vulcan HAD of done it, we would have heard no end of it from the CAA as it went into full PR mode after Shoreham last year. That said, it must have been to 2 or 3 degrees close - a large part of the watching crowd raised their eyebrows, myself included.

[F-32]

The Vulcan was allowed to role, just not at shows and seeing as the photos were supposed to show the aircraft transiting (ie not at a show) there was no issue.

Plus they promised not to do it again.

[krow113]

Remember what happened when someone tried to roll a B52...

[viscount806x]

Remember what happened when someone tried to roll a B52...

No. Can you remind us?

[Class377fcc12]

No. Can you remind us?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base_B-52_crash

That is what happened.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

That was tragic for sure, but a B52 has a much narrower flight envelope than a Vulcan in that respect. Vulcans rolled and performed half-Cubans several times in the good old days. The aircraft was a delta but one with traditional flying controls.

The B52 by comparison is a highly swept wing with spoilers for roll conteol rather than ailerons. You only get a rolling couple from the spoilers when the wing is flying - so it won't respond properly to roll control inputs when stalled, at negative or even reduced G. That's why B52s are restricted to airliner-like flying styles.

[krow113]

A casual observation reveals vastly different airframes.

I could see a Vulcan rolling , I saw one in person at the Abbotsford airshow do a fly by nearly 90 degrees vertical.

I can imagine the thin 52 wing dropping through the sky at that angle.Watching the vid you can see it happen as the wing goes under the fuse , she drops real quick at that point.

[viscount806x]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base_B-52_crash

That is what happened.

I looked at that and I'm sure that the B52 simply slipped in off a too steep turn rather than attempting a barrel roll as such.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I looked at that and I'm sure that the B52 simply slipped in off a too steep turn rather than attempting a barrel roll as such.

Agree. IIRC Holland had been pushing the boundaries for some time. On this occasion he cocked up a turn (not a barrel roll or aileron roll). The case is a classic on flight safety courses.

[Jessica]

The B-52 is famous for having that flight limitation. You can recover from an accidental slip entry if you have enough altitude, but of course altitude is exactly what he was lacking. The problem even effects models.

[Tzulscha]

I've seen that RC B-52 crash.

That was expensive about three grand per engine expensive.

He wasn't trying to roll it though, control lock I think got him. Or them really. Three guys to fly something like that monster.

I drift..

Vulcans not allowed to roll? Or not s'posed to be able?

Have you seen the Tex Johnson 707 roll?

I'd swear I heard of someone barrel rolling a 747 too but I can only find the 707 pix..

Topic drift...

Oh and CAA is Civil Aviation Administration?

[stevehnz]

It was always my understanding, ok, on thin ice from here, , that as long as one maintained positive G you could roll most anything. Hence Alex Henshaw rolling Lancs during WW2, I think it was in his "Sigh For a Merlin", so I'd have thought it was possible for a B-52 as well but maybe the spoiler vs aileron thing is the stumbling block to that.

Steve.

[bhouse]

Oh and CAA is Civil Aviation Administration?

Very close! Civil Aviation Authority.

Or "Campaign Against Aviation" if you're a pilot!

[bentwaters81tfw]

Not mine, but from one of our community, and I have seen it done. Not a roll, but on it's back.

[Jessica]

The Vulcan could do LABS bombing, which is essentially half a Cuban 8 with the added complication of releasing a bomb at just the right point on the way up. As previously mentioned, a barrel roll is a one g manoeuvre, something most aircraft are capable of.

Bentwaters, that photo is probably the top of a chandelle, which is a pull up and roll such that the recovery is made on a different heading to the entry. Sometimes, you can roll quite a way over as you go over the top They're also a one g manoeuvre.

[bentwaters81tfw]

Yep. Seen them do both.

[pigsty]

Vulcans not allowed to roll? Or not s'posed to be able?

As others have said, anything will barrel-roll in the right situation. The Vulcan is known to have done it in public at least once. The problem is that, like all delta aircraft, it loses a lot of energy in turns, with the result that it tends to slip down towards the lower wing. If you've seen the Vulcan display you'll have seen this in its wing-over manoeuvres and prolonged turns. A full 360^o increases the likelihood that you'll lose height as you go through the roll. At cruising height that's no problem. The reason it caused such a ruction way back when was that it was done at display height, with less than the aircraft's full span between the centreline and the ground. That was why the pilot was asked not to repeat it on the second day of the show. (His life might have been a bit easier with the Mk.2 we all know and love, but he was demonstrating one of the prototypes, with the least thrust available to any Vulcan.)

Having said all that, quite why anyone should complain if XH558 executed a roll last year is beyond me. Even if it wasn't allowed, how petty would you need to be do that?

[colin]

Unfortunately there are a lot of petty people out there with far too much time on their hands

[XV107]

Agree. IIRC Holland had been pushing the boundaries for some time. On this occasion he cocked up a turn (not a barrel roll or aileron roll). The case is a classic on flight safety courses.

Yes - I think I recall him being described as 'a fatal accident waiting to happen', but as you'll know, his chain of command, while clearly worried about his behaviour, proved unwilling or unable to take action against him.

There was more than enough evidence that he was, sooner rather than later, going to kill himself and his crew (an incident on the Yakima bombing range where he cleared a ridge way below the minimum allowed altitude -one of the crew that day suggested at no more than 3ft [sic...] AGL - being a reasonable combat indicator).

For those unfamiliar with the detail - This is an insightful piece about the loss of Czar 52. Also, some of the evidence from the investigation can be found online (e.g. transcripts ; p.121 references the 3ft crossover altitude; another is here ) if you wish to go through it (the link is just to part of AFR 110-14), although there's an awful lot of it).

Edited July 31, 2016 by XV107