Jump to content


Boeing 707 Barrell Roll


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
19 replies to this topic

planogram #1 Posted 07 February 2013 - 02:55 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 76
  • Member since:
    01-19-2013
Crazy test pilot Tex Johnson does a barrel roll in the pioneering Boeing 707. Makes me wonder what modern commercial planes are truly capable of in terms of performance and maneuverability if pushed to the limits.



RocketSpammer1 #2 Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:34 AM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 8,231
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012
There are air shows were 747s do this kind of maneuvering.


Show me where that dirty IL-2M rockets you at night...

Eitilt ar aerárthach ionsaí Is cosúil ag eitilt cónra.
Roicéid ... An Cothromóir mór.


planogram #3 Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:04 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 76
  • Member since:
    01-19-2013

View PostAlexVandross, on 07 February 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

There are air shows were 747s do this kind of maneuvering.

That would be interesting to see, do you have a video link or pics?

Crag_r #4 Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:31 AM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 4,766
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Its only a 1 G maneuver (what you experience living at sea level on Earth all the time), I can technically do the same thing in my 172



Per Ardua ad Astra "Through Adversity to the Stars"


Royal Australian Air Force


FRAG


planogram #5 Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:42 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 76
  • Member since:
    01-19-2013

View PostCrag_r, on 07 February 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

Its only a 1 G maneuver (what you experience living at sea level on Earth all the time), I can technically do the same thing in my 172

In theory, however the 172 has a gravity fed fuel system. I wouldn't try it.

bearrick #6 Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:39 PM

    Community Helper

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 2,021
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012
That was a prototype.  Sometimes those have mostly stripped interiors when being taken around to sell to prospective buyers.  Plus no passengers or cargo.  And I know they do the vomit comet... maybe they could take thrill seekers up and do stuff like that in addition to the weightless dives.

I'd love it.

401shield.png 401st Bomb Group STICKER US ARMY AIR CORPS 615th Bomb Squadron.jpg 615th Bombardment Squadron


"What kind of a war is this?" - 2nd Lt. Ken Powell



Ground Assault Specialist and TSh-3 master


lapon2046 #7 Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:13 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Some 747's have pulled several G's and possibly broken Mach 1: http://en.wikipedia....ines_Flight_006
They landed OK, but the elevators were shot.

Lieutenant_Bob264 #8 Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:18 PM

    Community Helper

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 1,385
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
it invariably seems that anyone discussing "high g" maneuvers in any form of media uses an aileron roll as the generic clip, annoys me every time, lol.



We the willing, led by the unknowing, continue to do the impossible for the ungrateful


Crag_r #9 Posted 07 February 2013 - 08:34 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 4,766
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postplanogram, on 07 February 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

In theory, however the 172 has a gravity fed fuel system. I wouldn't try it.

Well i have enough fuel in the engine fuel reservoir for the maneuver, and its fuel injected not a carbie, i can use the aux fuel pump if i have to.



Per Ardua ad Astra "Through Adversity to the Stars"


Royal Australian Air Force


FRAG


SkyWolf__WM #10 Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:54 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 3,297
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012
Wings would quite quickly fall off.
***************Fail to Suck****************

I shall use my aircraft and my skill to slightly inconvenience mine enemies.


gaidalcain85 #11 Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:58 AM

    Feedback Airedale

  • Newsletter
  • 0 battles
  • 874
  • Member since:
    11-29-2011

View PostMacMyers, on 07 February 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

Wings would quite quickly fall off.

Why would you say that? In fact the wings would not fall off, planes are built a little tougher than that  :Smile_honoring:

CrashTailspin #12 Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:03 AM

    Squadron Lead / Wargaming Stunt Pilot

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 0 battles
  • 1,771
  • Member since:
    10-11-2011
*puts flight instructor / airline pilot hat on*

View PostAlexVandross, on 07 February 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

There are air shows were 747s do this kind of maneuvering.

To my knowledge, a 747 has never been barrel rolled at an airshow.  There was a crazy B-52 pilot at Fairchild AFB a while back who thought his B-52 was an F-16.  He thought this so much so that he decided to prove it.....until he augered into the ground from an unrecoverable high-bank turn.

View PostCrag_r, on 07 February 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

Its only a 1 G maneuver (what you experience living at sea level on Earth all the time), I can technically do the same thing in my 172

This is true.  A properly executed barrel roll is a continuous 1-G maneuver, since you're continuously applying back pressure throughout the maneuver.

View Postplanogram, on 07 February 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

In theory, however the 172 has a gravity fed fuel system. I wouldn't try it.

Regardless if it had a gravity fed system or required a fuel pump, so long as positive Gs were applied to the aircraft, fuel will still feed to the engine.  The issue comes when you start applying negative Gs to an aircraft that is not fuel-injected.  

A perfect example of this is early-Mk. Spitfires vs. Messerschmitt Bf.109s during the Battle of Britain.  Bf.109s were fuel-injected, while Spitfires were not.  When being pursued by a Spitfire, a 109 pilot would simply push the stick forward and enter a steep dive.  If the Spit pilot did this, they would un-port the fuel and potentially cause their engine to seize.  To alleviate this, the Spit pilot could roll inverted and pull on the stick, causing positive Gs and allowing them to continue the pursuit.

View PostMacMyers, on 07 February 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

Wings would quite quickly fall off.

A 1-G maneuver causes no significant additional stress to the aircraft.  What you're thinking of is a term called Load Factor.  Load factor is the total amount of lift the aircraft is producing divided by the aircraft's weight, which is expressed in the term "Gs".



In level flight, an aircraft's total lift equals its weight.  However, when an aircraft enters a level turn, its vertical component of lift now equals its weight.  In order to create enough vertical lift to equal its weight, the aircraft has to create more total lift.  This total lift (and equal but opposite "resultant force") now gets divided by the aircraft's weight, which results in the aircraft's Load Factor.

Any time an aircraft produces more total lift than the aircraft's weight, it experiences a Load Factor of more than 1.  For example, a level 60 degree bank turn equals 2Gs.  A 70 degree bank turn is 3Gs.  Keep in mind, however, that lift is always relative to the aircraft's flight path, and not necessarily in which direction the nose is pointed.  But I digress...

Suffice to say that a discussion on Load Factor is best done in a classroom (with a lot of markerboards and multiple colored markers).  A forum?  Not the greatest locale.

You must not question "The Forum Laws".  Any questioning of "The Forum Laws" results in automatic removal and / or locking of any post, regardless of the level of constructiveness or thought provocation.


SkyWolf__WM #13 Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:08 AM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 3,297
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012

View Postgaidalcain85, on 08 February 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

Why would you say that? In fact the wings would not fall off, planes are built a little tougher than that  :Smile_honoring:

Heh... OK trying flying one upside down for awhile. I'm not talking about a G controlled roll.
***************Fail to Suck****************

I shall use my aircraft and my skill to slightly inconvenience mine enemies.


Sgt_Goldham #14 Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:50 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostMacMyers, on 08 February 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

Heh... OK trying flying one upside down for awhile. I'm not talking about a G controlled roll.

Flying inverted does not produce any more g's than normal.

stealth250 #15 Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:18 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 5,251
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012

View PostCrashTailspin, on 08 February 2013 - 03:03 AM, said:

*puts flight instructor / airline pilot hat on*



To my knowledge, a 747 has never been barrel rolled at an airshow.  There was a crazy B-52 pilot at Fairchild AFB a while back who thought his B-52 was an F-16.  He thought this so much so that he decided to prove it.....until he augered into the ground from an unrecoverable high-bank turn.



This is true.  A properly executed barrel roll is a continuous 1-G maneuver, since you're continuously applying back pressure throughout the maneuver.



Regardless if it had a gravity fed system or required a fuel pump, so long as positive Gs were applied to the aircraft, fuel will still feed to the engine.  The issue comes when you start applying negative Gs to an aircraft that is not fuel-injected.  

A perfect example of this is early-Mk. Spitfires vs. Messerschmitt Bf.109s during the Battle of Britain.  Bf.109s were fuel-injected, while Spitfires were not.  When being pursued by a Spitfire, a 109 pilot would simply push the stick forward and enter a steep dive.  If the Spit pilot did this, they would un-port the fuel and potentially cause their engine to seize.  To alleviate this, the Spit pilot could roll inverted and pull on the stick, causing positive Gs and allowing them to continue the pursuit.



A 1-G maneuver causes no significant additional stress to the aircraft.  What you're thinking of is a term called Load Factor.  Load factor is the total amount of lift the aircraft is producing divided by the aircraft's weight, which is expressed in the term "Gs".



In level flight, an aircraft's total lift equals its weight.  However, when an aircraft enters a level turn, its vertical component of lift now equals its weight.  In order to create enough vertical lift to equal its weight, the aircraft has to create more total lift.  This total lift (and equal but opposite "resultant force") now gets divided by the aircraft's weight, which results in the aircraft's Load Factor.

Any time an aircraft produces more total lift than the aircraft's weight, it experiences a Load Factor of more than 1.  For example, a level 60 degree bank turn equals 2Gs.  A 70 degree bank turn is 3Gs.  Keep in mind, however, that lift is always relative to the aircraft's flight path, and not necessarily in which direction the nose is pointed.  But I digress...

Suffice to say that a discussion on Load Factor is best done in a classroom (with a lot of markerboards and multiple colored markers).  A forum?  Not the greatest locale.

????.anyway what kind of plane do you pilot?


President and Founder of FRAG
FRAG came, FRAG saw, FRAG countered, FRAG accomplished mission

SkyWolf__WM #16 Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:25 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 3,297
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012

View PostSgt_Goldham, on 18 February 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

Flying inverted does not produce any more g's than normal.

Heheh... yeah... but the aircraft is not designed to take said G's on the top of the control surfaces. If you try to fly most aircraft inverted the wings will come off. Quite rapidly in fact.

Try it it if you don't believe me. :Smile_glasses:
***************Fail to Suck****************

I shall use my aircraft and my skill to slightly inconvenience mine enemies.


stealth250 #17 Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:42 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 5,251
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012

View PostMacMyers, on 18 February 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

Heheh... yeah... but the aircraft is not designed to take said G's on the top of the control surfaces. If you try to fly most aircraft inverted the wings will come off. Quite rapidly in fact.

Try it it if you don't believe me. :Smile_glasses:
can I borrow our Boeing 707? :Smile_teethhappy:


President and Founder of FRAG
FRAG came, FRAG saw, FRAG countered, FRAG accomplished mission

Old_Crow51 #18 Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:32 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 433
  • Member since:
    04-30-2012

View PostMacMyers, on 18 February 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

Heheh... yeah... but the aircraft is not designed to take said G's on the top of the control surfaces. If you try to fly most aircraft inverted the wings will come off. Quite rapidly in fact.

Try it it if you don't believe me. :Smile_glasses:

My god!

You put the same load on the wings flying inverted as you do flying level, the only difference is because the airfoil is upside down the aircraft is going to want to pull down as opposed to up (most aircraft). The Extra 300's wings are designed with zero incidence, so it will fly equally as good upside down as it would right side up.

Basically what Crash said is completely correct, as he is a pilot, and I as well am a pilot. We have to learn this stuff from day one.


Proof of Ace: A6M2 A6M5 F4F F2G P-51A

Crag_r #19 Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:59 AM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 4,766
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostMacMyers, on 18 February 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

Heheh... yeah... but the aircraft is not designed to take said G's on the top of the control surfaces. If you try to fly most aircraft inverted the wings will come off. Quite rapidly in fact.

Try it it if you don't believe me. :Smile_glasses:

You only have -1G while flying inverted in Level flight, legally in order for an Aircraft to be Airworthy (for the most part) it has to be able to easily cope with that.

So no the wings will not fall off, remember wings are VERY strong things they take the entire weight of the Aircraft in the Air.



Per Ardua ad Astra "Through Adversity to the Stars"


Royal Australian Air Force


FRAG


SkyWolf__WM #20 Posted 19 February 2013 - 04:42 AM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 3,297
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012
Heh... this is a pretty funny topic.

I guess it depends on your definition of "flying inverted"   :Smile_unsure:
***************Fail to Suck****************

I shall use my aircraft and my skill to slightly inconvenience mine enemies.