Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:04:43 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-4012172@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.239.58.190; envelope-from=keith.smith@gmail.com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=LKQ4Z+BNhfOtgJdht7IyYkv+F9njKDQNfnF3Wmu+577E/OTlcID4fbHMy5Sa8IO02R
         yMXUKQxt1U6hrIBj47nwuuQSRcIjWxXimSvucvbZ+YDD9d17oiYGAGsGtGXHi03K7sjs
         oUok7rRS9vQpykTI75Mgm3vNtpT3mkas4NfCc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: clarification on 'aileron roll'
From: Keith Smith <keith.smith@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

To anyone confused by my reference to a 'strict' or 'pure' aileron
roll vs something that is aileron roll-ish, I apologize.  Based on my
readings years ago, I was under the impression that aileron rolls were
done with minimal change in pitch (consequently, incurring -1G for a
brief moment during the inverted portion), involving forward pressure
on the elevator.

Checking the IAC web site, I see their definition of an aileron roll
allows for massive changes in pitch, starting with a large pitch up,
full aileron deflection, allowing the nose to fall throughout the
process.  This changes the profile substantially, then, and is
basically what I flew the second time around.

I'll stop referring to it as a pseudo aileron roll, then, and just
call it an aileron roll since my definition of a pure aileron roll was
different and incorrect.  That said, I'm still not using full
deflection, but that isn't material here.