Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:22 pm
The only thing that looks fake to me is there is not much visible aileron deflection. The light and shadows look right. And those three guys are looking at something, especially that middle guy.
Steve G
Steve G
Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:25 pm
Which points to what John Beyl is surmising. I don't thinks its a roll, but a very aggresive wing wag or knife edge.
Greg
Greg
Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:31 pm
If a P-38 has enough rudder to fly knife edge that low, it sure has enough elevator to fly inverted that low.
Steve G
Steve G
Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:33 pm
Having looked at this interesting picture, my conclusion is that it is most likely a fake.
For one, I can't see any aileron deflection, which one would have thought would be fairly high if the pilot was rolling, and especially at that altitude!
And given that the F-5 didn't have the power boosted ailerons (and therefore a lower rate of roll and increased control force for the pilot), I would want to make sure I had enough room to complete the roll if it where me!
If it isn't a fake, then I can only assume if the roll continued, that it hit the ground along with those in the picture watching. Or the pilot managed to stop the roll whilst inverted, and 'bunted' until he had enough altitude to roll upright.
As a side note, I remember reading an article by Stephen Grey on flying the late lamented TFC machine 'California Cutie' (mentioned here earlier, along with a video of its demise), and as far as rolling goes, he said something along the lines of "Some work is going to be needed when rolling this big baby at low level!" This was because he noted that there was quite a bit of adverse yaw, along with a tendency to respond slowly to the initial aileron input, followed by a tendency for it to keep rolling once it had started, and he noted you needed "Some opposite stop for accuracy". (This aircraft had the boosted ailerons btw).
And whilst I've mentioned 'California Cutie', just to clarify, the AAIB suggested that the most likey cause of the crash was some sort of control restriction which led to the second roll (and subsequent impact with the runway), and not by a problem with the aileron control or hydraulic boosting system, which showed no signs of pre impact failure or problems.
Cheers
Paul
For one, I can't see any aileron deflection, which one would have thought would be fairly high if the pilot was rolling, and especially at that altitude!
And given that the F-5 didn't have the power boosted ailerons (and therefore a lower rate of roll and increased control force for the pilot), I would want to make sure I had enough room to complete the roll if it where me!
If it isn't a fake, then I can only assume if the roll continued, that it hit the ground along with those in the picture watching. Or the pilot managed to stop the roll whilst inverted, and 'bunted' until he had enough altitude to roll upright.
As a side note, I remember reading an article by Stephen Grey on flying the late lamented TFC machine 'California Cutie' (mentioned here earlier, along with a video of its demise), and as far as rolling goes, he said something along the lines of "Some work is going to be needed when rolling this big baby at low level!" This was because he noted that there was quite a bit of adverse yaw, along with a tendency to respond slowly to the initial aileron input, followed by a tendency for it to keep rolling once it had started, and he noted you needed "Some opposite stop for accuracy". (This aircraft had the boosted ailerons btw).
And whilst I've mentioned 'California Cutie', just to clarify, the AAIB suggested that the most likey cause of the crash was some sort of control restriction which led to the second roll (and subsequent impact with the runway), and not by a problem with the aileron control or hydraulic boosting system, which showed no signs of pre impact failure or problems.
Cheers
Paul
Last edited by Bradburger on Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:02 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:36 pm
You guys are assuming that he is starting a complete roll. Perhaps he is finishing a roll? 
Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:44 pm
Nathan wrote:You guys are assuming that he is starting a complete roll. Perhaps he is finishing a roll?
Ummm............
If he is starting the roll, the we are sure he made a big fireball
if he is just completing the roll, then he more than likely made a big fireball, unless he is real good
Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:46 pm
then maybe the photo is backwards? 
Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:48 pm
Nathan wrote:You guys are assuming that he is starting a complete roll. Perhaps he is finishing a roll?
Nathan,
No I'm not!
The picture gives the impression that he is about to complete the roll, and assuming he was still rolling, even with the small amount of height he has, by the time the roll would have been completed (and it doesn't matter which way he was rolling), he would have hit the ground.
If you can stomach it, take a look at the footage of the crash of 'California Cutie' again and you'll see what I mean.
Cheers
Paul
Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:54 pm
(assuming the photo is real) I don't think we are seeing a still of an aileron roll. We just don't know which maneuver is being captured. There is the possibility that the airplane was stable inverted, and has begun a turn (outside, negative G). Is it possible in a 38? I have no idea.
Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:54 pm
Easy guys...just making some suggestions thats all. 
I can at lest make out a shadow on the ground so I really dont think this picture is a fake.
I can at lest make out a shadow on the ground so I really dont think this picture is a fake.
Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:58 pm
Nathan wrote:Easy guys...just making some suggestions thats all.
Nathan, I didn't intend to come across as agressive, so my apologies!
Indeed we are assuming it is rolling, but then the caption in the book says it was!
If he was rolling to the right, then as I said earlier, it's possible he stopped inverted, but it all looks a bit tight to me!
Cheers
Paul
Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:08 pm
I don't think you can compare the Duxford crash to this. The Duxford ship had a high sink rate going by the last roll. It is interesting though, as Paul said, if you can stomach watching it, freeze frame the first roll at the same bank angle as the photo. The nose position is about the same.
But obviously, the guy had no control over the situation past a certain point.
Steve G
But obviously, the guy had no control over the situation past a certain point.
Steve G
Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:30 pm
I can at lest make out a shadow on the ground so I really dont think this picture is a fake.
I fail to see a shadow on the ground that relates to this particular P-38. The more I review this photo, the more it translates to
If indeed it's real, then it just seems logical someone perished. There's simply just very little chance anyone could recover from that angle of attack. I hope for the poor soul flying that machine I'm wrong.
Mark
Last edited by Hellcat on Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:34 pm
jaybird wrote:(assuming the photo is real) I don't think we are seeing a still of an aileron roll. We just don't know which maneuver is being captured. There is the possibility that the airplane was stable inverted, and has begun a turn (outside, negative G). Is it possible in a 38? I have no idea.
Your scenario is possible, but not likely. With that angle of bank and a pre-existing nose down angle, it would take a huge amount of down elevator to generate enough negative angle of attack to bring the nose up enough to avoid the ground.
Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:47 pm
Hellcat wrote:I can at lest make out a shadow on the ground so I really dont think this picture is a fake.
I fail to see a shadow on the ground that relates to this particular P-38. The more I review this photo, the more it translates to
If indeed it's real, then it just seems logical someone perished. There's simply just very little chance anyone could recover from that angle of attack. I hope for the poor soul flying that machine I'm wrong.
Mark
I looked at the photo closely on PS and it is hard to tell if it is a fake.
Would be nice to see a more original photo tho.