Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Fun it was; the perfect Walter Mitty fighter plane! Wonderful control harmony, intuitive response, easy to land, and hell for stout; practically impossible for a clumsy or foolish pilot to get hurt in. Seriously underpowered; you had to plan on altitude loss on every aerobatic maneuver akin to a C150 Acrobat with two big guys aboard. The T34A Air Force version can be STCd up to 285 and even 300 HP engines. I don't think that's so for the Navy B version. Those up-engined birds are supposed to be great performers. Never flown one, but I sure would like to!Always wanted to fly a T-34; looks like such a fun airplane!
i was taught unusual attitude recovery using the artificial horizon/ attitude indicator and airspeed. this was civil aviation circa 1978 down in Oklahoma. but I can easily see how using the turn and bank would be just as useful.
i was taught unusual attitude recovery using the artificial horizon/ attitude indicator and airspeed. this was civil aviation circa 1978 down in Oklahoma. but I can easily see how using the turn and bank would be just as useful.
That was the fun part of instructing, making believers out of skeptics.My instructor would always come up with new and interesting ways to get me into the maneuver so that I still thought I was straight and level
What variables increased the gimbal-limits of artificial horizon?Ah, for the joys of an all-axis 360° no-limits AI! That Korean War vintage T34B had a black and white H-6 style Artificial Horizon with gimbal limits like the blinders on a draft horse. Don't look at it cross-eyed; it'll tumble.
I was always under the impression that high wing-loading only affected stability at high airspeeds/low altitudes?Yes of course I meant to write "very high wing loading"-- good catch!
When you say two different sets of wings, do you mean they altered the geometry of the wing? Or they merely replaced the wings with ones that are new, but of the same shape?They have had inlet mods, two different sets of wings, new ejection seats and a glass cockpit installed w/HUD.
You'd think, but I guess the attitude is: As long as it keeps working, why bother?Regardless, it flies on today as the advanced trainer for the USAF and several other countries. I would think it's approaching it's mid 50's it would be time for a new trainer...
Well, I could imagine being a hard-ass would have not made you well liked among students, but you probably saved at least some of their lives down the road by heavily emphasizing it.I was instructing in C150s and Beech Sundowners and Sierras in 1978. By that time attitude and heading gyros had progressed far beyond the early 50s instruments in that old T-34. I used to start students off with "mild" unusual attitudes within the expanded limits of the new style gyros, and let them use the AI. After they'd gained a little confidence and gotten over the upset willies, I'd do a more violent upset with the student "head up" so they could see the gyro tumble. At this point they had no trouble seeing the importance of Needle-Ball-Airspeed. After that, all recoveries were done with suction cups over the AI and HI. I was a bit of a hard-ass about spin avoidance and spin recoveries, and I would occaisonaly lose a student to other instructors who wouldn't expect them to do "uncomfortable things". Never lost a student or a former student to the implacable law of gravity. Cranked out quite a few eventual airline, military, and corporate pilots, though.
You have an adventurist spirit, which is the right kind of mind you'd want in an aerobatic pilot.I actually enjoyed unusual attitude recovery training. My instructor would always come up with new and interesting ways to get me into the maneuver so that I still thought I was straight and level before I lifted my head and opened my eyes. Always amazes me how your mind can play games with you like that.
I learned to fly in '69 and '70 model Cessna 150s, and IIRC their gyros could take + - 35° pitch and + - 75° roll and were not cageable. A spin entry and recovery would tumble them good. Those old gyros in the T34 couldn't take even that; I think they were good for 25 and 50 in free mode, but we always caged them when we intended to get frisky. As for "auto-cage" as you put it, I presume you're talking about the spherical gyro attitude indicator. So far as I can tell, they were common in tactical jets as of the mid 1950s, but I'm no expert. Look up some cockpit photos.What variables increased the gimbal-limits of artificial horizon?
I was looking at a documentary, which I think might be the documentary you were talking about, which is dated 1960...
Honestly I think many of the older videos were better at explaining things -- they might be a bit dry, but they were in a calm voice that had good visual images to illustrate a point. I think everybody's seen a wobbling top (which they were probably the reason why it started wobbling), but honestly I would have thought the gyro would not have reacted to the curvature of the earth as much since I figured centrifugal force would have held it up with the needle pointing at the center of the earth (which is always under you), stupid as that sounds.
When did the ability to auto-cage instruments occur? I'm pretty sure they were around by 1972, but otherwise I got no idea.
On the contrary, bringing them along gently, helping them through the "upset willies", and building their comfort zone in aircraft maneuvering enhanced their confidence and their sense of command, for which they were usually grateful. The last thing in the world you want is a pilot who panics and hauls back on the yoke when the windshield fills up with rotating trees. It's a terrifying sight the first time you see it just after the world's gone suddenly topsy-turvy on you. You're better off if you've "been there, done that".Well, I could imagine being a hard-ass would have not made you well liked among students,
Zipper, here's an experiment for you. Put an empty five gallon plastic pail upright in the bed of your pickup, back by the tailgate, and drive 35-40 MPH down a bumpy dirt road. Note its behavior. Now fill that pail 2/3 full of sand and repeat. See the difference? lbs/sq ft are lbs/sq ft, whether they're the wing loading of a sand bucket or a T38.I was always under the impression that high wing-loading only affected stability at high airspeeds/low altitudes?
Ouch...I learned to fly in '69 and '70 model Cessna 150s, and IIRC their gyros could take + - 35° pitch and + - 75° roll and were not cageable. A spin entry and recovery would tumble them good.
I could respect that!Those old gyros in the T34 couldn't take even that; I think they were good for 25 and 50 in free mode, but we always caged them when we intended to get frisky.
Well, it had to do with gyroscopic instruments in general: As I grasp it, the attitude indicator seemed to undergo a controlled precession once you went above +82 or below -82, which just flipped the ball.As for "auto-cage" as you put it, I presume you're talking about the spherical gyro attitude indicator.
Well, what I meant was that if you have a top, the bottom of the top would be pulled down by gravity (1g), and down is basically towards the source of gravity which is basically the core of the earth (since our own brains work by sensing gravity, and since the curvature of the earth is so gradual, we simply interpret it as "down", not "aimed to the core of the earth"). I was under the impression that centrifugal force made it stand up and provided the stability, the bottom of the top simply responded to gravity (i.e. pointed down)."Centrifugal force keeping the needle pointing to the center of the earth"???
Well, I actually never took a formal physics class (I'm not all that fond of this to be honest).Refresh your physics, son!
No, I get that: length, width, height, which allows you to go left-right (X-axis), front-back (Y-axis), up and down (Z-axis); I was talking more to the relationship of the force of gravity to the core of the earth. Yeah, I have a tendency to be misunderstood a lot.It's a 360° three axis sky out there, get out of your straight and level mindset!
That's good.On the contrary, bringing them along gently, helping them through the "upset willies", and building their comfort zone in aircraft maneuvering enhanced their confidence and their sense of command, for which they were usually grateful.
Yeah, generally if you do something enough, you become desensitized to it.The last thing in the world you want is a pilot who panics and hauls back on the yoke when the windshield fills up with rotating trees. It's a terrifying sight the first time you see it just after the world's gone suddenly topsy-turvy on you. You're better off if you've "been there, done that".
In my physics classes I was taught that centrifugal force does not exist, it is a human construct to explain a sensation or apparent effect, the true force is centripetal force.Well, what I meant was that if you have a top, the bottom of the top would be pulled down by gravity (1g), and down is basically towards the source of gravity which is basically the core of the earth (since our own brains work by sensing gravity, and since the curvature of the earth is so gradual, we simply interpret it as "down", not "aimed to the core of the earth"). I was under the impression that centrifugal force made it stand up and provided the stability, the bottom of the top simply responded to gravity (i.e. pointed down)..
Right you are. I too was taught to use the terms "centripetal force" and "centrifugal" or "inertial" reaction. Guess I just slipped into the vernacular.In my physics classes I was taught that centrifugal force does not exist, it is a human construct to explain a sensation or apparent effect, the true force is centripetal force.
Centripetal force - Wikipedia
Centrifugal force - Wikipedia
It's not so much a matter of being desensitized as learning to cope with and master the situation. All these years later, it's still a thrill to see the windshield full of trees going round and round, it's just no longer an overwhelming threat.That's good.
Yeah, generally if you do something enough, you become desensitized to it.
Understand, the sphere in the indicator provides heading as well as pitch and roll information; the meridians on the sphere depict the aircraft's magnetic heading. Now envision flying a loop. As you pass through the verical, both up and down, your magnetic heading reverses, so the sphere has to rotate 180° to properly depict your new direction.As I grasp it, the attitude indicator seemed to undergo a controlled precession once you went above +82 or below -82, which just flipped the ball.
That was probably the navigation bombing system periodically correcting the inherent precession drift of the gyros. Remember, these were D model Buffs, not the latest and greatest, and no longer part of the strategic deterrent. They probably weren't up to date and probably using an archaic analog computer nav system. True relics. Some other folks on here (Token, maybe?) are surely more knowledgeable than I on this.I remember, for example a mention that during the Linebacker II raids, as they were maneuvering the planes, the bomb/nav system's gyro would cage periodically causing the radar display to show all sorts of empty/black spots.
The point of the top is NOT pulled down by gravity; it points "down" because that's the way it was oriented when it was spun up, and it's just complying with its hereditary mandate to maintain rigidity in space.Well, what I meant was that if you have a top, the bottom of the top would be pulled down by gravity (1g), and down is basically towards the source of gravity which is basically the core of the earth (since our own brains work by sensing gravity, and since the curvature of the earth is so gradual, we simply interpret it as "down", not "aimed to the core of the earth"). I was under the impression that centrifugal force made it stand up and provided the stability, the bottom of the top simply responded to gravity (i.e. pointed down).