Squirrel83 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12083 times:
This might be a stupid topic but I have never seen it done. In the following photo http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=627377 it states Here we have the A318, completing a roll, who said airliners couldn't go upside down!Did it really do a roll at the Airshow? Can other aircraft do the same thing? wouldn't there be too much stress on the aircraft; wings, ect.?
WestIndian425 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1008 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12052 times:
Well, back in the 70's the Boeing 707 (Called 320 Dash 80 then) was doing a demonstration in Seattle when the chief test pilot performed a few barrel rolls to the amazement of the crowd, and the scared shock of Boeing's CEO.
Since you haven't heard of it, check out the Discovery Wings Channel at any point during the day just when a show is over (usually at 2-3 minutes before the hour). This is when they show historic moments in aviation. I'm sure you'll see it at some point during the day. They repeat it (and a few other events) all day, everyday.
Neil
God did not create aircraft pilots to be on the ground
Deltaffindfw From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12001 times:
WestIndian425 - Tex Johnston performed the barrel roll in August 1955.
Beachthing From United States of America, joined May 2004, 71 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 11969 times:
The test pilot of the dash-80 reminded the Boeing CEO that while doing a roll the plane maintained normal G levels...rolling is way less demanding than people think it is.
Voodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 1962 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 11935 times:
I was at Farnborough on the day that photo was taken and there was no A318 roll or upside down flight.
A `wing-over' (at the top of a climb) maybe but from where I was standing I don't think it went past 90 degrees.
WestIndian425 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1008 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 11875 times:
Deltaffindfw
Oops! Sorry about that. I'm not sure why I though 70's.
Neil
God did not create aircraft pilots to be on the ground
MD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 16 Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 11864 times:
JetMechMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 380 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 11776 times:
Yes they can be rolled, just like any other aircraft. I personaly rode on a DC-9 test flight many years ago, where the aircraft was rolled.
Blackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1892 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 11733 times:
This is A.net. Mistakes are unforgiveable. I made a misake once and was sent to Siberia, but "it was closed".
If this plane was inverted, wouldn't we be looking at the "top" of the aircraft? Or did the photographer miss that part of the "roll"?
Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9067 posts, RR: 13 Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 11661 times:
That a very nice photo and a very impressive "roll"
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11511 times:
A barell roll, when correctly executed, will maintain more or less 1 g on the airframe the whole time. This means no problems with structural stress or fuel feed. I don't see why any plane should not be able to handle this.
A one-point roll will be considerably more difficult, since it requires more manoeuvrable planes, and the g forces change during the roll. Most airliners will probably not be able to handle this.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
MoodyBlues From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 142 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11451 times:
As I understand it, like the 707 roll in the 50s (that footage does kick ass, BTW) Any plane is capable of the barrel roll if done correctly.
However, on modern planes w/ computerized flight controls, doesn't the software prevent excessive angles of bank, etc, which would make the roll impossible, not for the airframe, but the operator?
Philsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11412 times:
No FBW Airbus, don't know enough about the 777, will roll beyond 67 degrees, IIRC. There is also pitch limits, I believe +30/-15. It's been a few years since I have flown the 320.
However, any "normal" control aircraft theoretically should be able to do a barrel roll. As previously stated, when done correctly, it is a 1 g maneuver.
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3249 posts, RR: 14 Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11383 times:
As I understand it, like the 707 roll in the 50s (that footage does kick ass, BTW) Any plane is capable of the barrel roll if done correctly.
IIRC another 707 crashed when a pilot attempted a barrel roll during a test flight - hence the reason they're generally not encouraged. I have read this accident report but am not sure where to locate it now (probably somewhere around here: http://amelia.db.erau.edu/ec/ntsbaar.htm#67") - apparently there was not enough evidence to definitively point to a barrel roll but it was obvious reading the report that that was what the investigators believed.
I'll keep searching for this report and if I find it I'll post a direct link...
However, on modern planes w/ computerized flight controls, doesn't the software prevent excessive angles of bank, etc, which would make the roll impossible, not for the airframe, but the operator?
On some modern planes, yeah. Depends on what you mean by "modern", though, too - some airplanes have bank angle warnings but no bank limiter. You won't find a bank limiter in a DC-9-50 flying with Northwest today, for example.
Airliners are designed to be inherently stable, though, which means if you invert one it will pitch down (or up, depending on your perspective) pretty rapidly and in some cases uncontrollably. This has happened many times in accidents where the equivalent of a barrel roll was performed in an uncommanded manner - the airplane may have been saved if only there was more altitude to play with, but it's nearly impossible to come out of a barrel roll at anywhere close to the same altitude you went into it with in almost any airliner I could think of. So generally once you get beyond a 90 degree bank angle it becomes practically impossible to either keep the nose up or even maintain altitude if you do - "flying upside down" is futile because the wings aren't shaped to generate lift in that orientation.
The stress of a barrel roll itself wouldn't kill an airframe but the stress of the airspeed you'd gain in the resulting dive, combined with the stress on the control surfaces required to keep a positive attitude would probably at least do some significant damage. The few examples I can think of where airplanes have entered rolls uncommanded and lived to tell about it (China Air off the California coast a while back, for example) have all resulted in major damage to the airplane.
In other words, airlines can roll, but it's not really something you want to do in any modern plane
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Aerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4634 posts, RR: 51 Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11372 times:
Starlionblue,
Nice explanation. You saved me the trouble of typing it!
On a self-gloss note, I've barrel-rolled a C152, C172, PA-28/235, Citabria, and Bormans' TF-51 after it was built by Square One Aviation.
Also single point rolled that same TF-51 over Lake Matthews, embarrassed to say that I didn't keep enough forward stick pressure on it and I let the nose come down on the last part of the roll. The G.I.B.S. was laughing at that as I was pulling out of that one!
To roll a big-a$$ commercial aircraft must be a hoot!
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3249 posts, RR: 14 Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11305 times:
Just a quick update to my post - it's been a long time since I've read about this incident so I may have confused a dutch roll 707 accident with a barrel roll (I didn't confuse the terms, just may have forgotten which type of roll was involved in the incident I had remembered). Anyway, I think this is the accident I had mentioned, though a dutch roll is a lot different than a barrel roll... still, note that the cause of the accident was bank angles that exceeded limits, leading to structural failure: http://aviation-safety.net/database/1959/591019-0.htm
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11260 times:
Though all of the above is true - wouldn't using a commercial plane in such a manner void your warranty ? What I mean is that there are some planes that are certified for aerobatic maneuvers and some that are not. An airliner is not designed with the possibility of a deliberate roll in mind. Airline manufacturers are not (to my knowledge) required to show to the FAA and JAA that their products would survive such treatment. Something might not work.
What that means is that though most airliners could do it, it would be foolish to do this and to expect the same level of safety ordinarily expected in civil aviation. That level of safety can only be expected by those who use such planes to do what they were made and certified to do. That does not only go for planes, but to many other highly complex products as well.
JMChladek From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 331 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11207 times:
At last check, the FBW Airbuses had bank limiters so they can't exceed about 35 degrees in a roll if I remember correctly. Although an A320 did get briefly inverted once during an aborted approach to Moscow (can't remember what airline it was). The pilot didn't like the pitch angle on climbout during the aborted approach and applied some foreward stick pressure to lower the nose. The computer responded by continuing to pitch the nose up until the plane practically flipped over on its back. It almost looked like a sloppy loop on the data recorder playback, but thankfully the plane righted itself. So it has happened with an Airbus, just not intentionally.
The 1 gee roll in a big jet is nothing new. Word is that somebody also did it in a B-47 jet bomber during the early 50s and that has a much more spindley looking wing then what the Dash 80 and 707 had. In addition to the inverted flight picture that was taken on the Dash 80 flight, there is also footage of it taken from the ground during the event shot by a spectator watching the boat races.
MxCtrlr From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2485 posts, RR: 40 Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11190 times:
The TWA 727 that broke Mach 1 did a barrel roll prior to the resulting Mach dive and survived (and was eventually returned to service with another carrier). Boeing builds them tough - The 707 (PA), 727 (TW) and 747 (China Airlines) have all broken Mach 1 and survived intact.
MxCtrlr
Freight Dogs Anonymous - O.O.T.S.K.
DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(
PilotNtrng From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 897 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11114 times:
Ok folks, let me play the idiot here, but we are talking about Roll not Barrel Roll. All Aircraft Roll, just like they Pitch. Roll and Pitch are terms for bank and accent/decent. Im just a Private Pilot, but even in the 172 and a Piper Warrior there are turn coordinators, attitude indicators, and etc. My point being, all aircraft roll.
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 26 Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11004 times:
A 73G has done a barrell-roll before. It was done on the 1st 73G built and that is now owned by WN. That barrell-roll was a stunt done at the Seattle SeaFair hydroplane race halftime show. I dont exactly remember the year but it was before WN took delivery of their 1st 73G.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
25 Nudelhirsch: Philsquares has one in... Today's FBW-systems do not allow angles beyond a certain critical level. Actually (not intended to stir this up) the Habshei
26 Rotate: aloha, the comment for the pciture is just wrong, also have been at Farnborough this weekend, and the A318 did definetelky not a roll , it banked roug
27 OPNLguy: >>>A 73G has done a barrell-roll before. It was done on the 1st 73G built and that is now owned by WN. That barrell-roll was a stunt done at the Seatt
28 AirframeAS: The -700 barrell-roll did happen. It was a PR stunt that Boeing did with this aircraft. I saw it being done on TV while watching the races. Trust me,
29 Jaspike: I personally think, thoise comments shouzld be removed by the screeners, if the photographer is just obvious lying for getting more views ... He winke
30 Voodoo: I took the `wink' as an A v. B poke* rather than a self-depracating one (*tho in retrospect it could have been a poke in either direction! ).
31 Srbrenna: You can see the roll at http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm It is a humungous downoad (20Mb) though
32 Vzlet: A barrel roll may be a relatively benign, "low-G" maneuver, but it's not a "1-G" event as mentioned here and in similar threads. The constantly changi
33 EnoreFilho: Here's the link of a roll with a 737-300 in 1988: http://aviation-safety.net/database/1988/880929-0.htm This plane was hijacked, and to disarm the cri
34 Squirrel83: I like that Video of the 707 Roll Very neat ~
35 Manzoori: Folks, I was at Farnborough as well and can attest the aircraft did not roll.... and has been mentioned time and again please note the smilie in the c
36 Airplanepics: Ah, I love a.net. This really did make my day! You get so many people who jump to a conclusion before they have actually read the statement properly.
37 Ben: As was explained in another thread on tech-ops, the Airbus did a series of tight turns almost overhead the crowd. That's why you get the illusion - si
38 Jkw777: Simon, I would like to say well done on this achievement. I would also like to say, unlike most of you, I actually know Simon.. And he has a great sen
40 Airplanepics: I know someone already mentioned the airshow but I have to brag on that picture the guy who took it is a good photographer or maybe its just teh god p
41 N685FE: Did you ever think a DC10 could do a roll? Here it is, it took me a while to fine the reference again. http://www.tailstrike.com/070494.htm. FX, flig
42 SlamClick: So it has been stated more than once that a 737 did a roll at Seafair in Seattle. It has been re-stated that it was a 737 and not a mistaken reference
43 OPNLguy: >>>Where are the pictures of it? Wasn't it worthy of a picture? Didn't anyone think to carry a telephoto despite the fact that the boat races were way
44 Mikec: I think it's really sad that some people are so quick to criticise photographers on here (fake photos, comments not to some peoples liking). I wonder
45 SlamClick: Perhaps the photographer is blameless in this but the fact remains that this photo has been linked in two different threads (that I have seen, may be
46 Airplanepics: Hi, Also worthy of note, this is by far (29000+ views to 2nd place 10,000+) his most popular photo. That alone might make some suspicious. I doubt tha
47 SlamClick: Wouldn't you say it is the other way around? Your picture is top of the day because of the number of hits. Being to top of the last 24-48 hours would
48 Starlionblue: Actually (not intended to stir this up) the Habsheim Crash seemed to be partially caused by limits in the FBW That crash was caused by the pilot. A pl
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 1962 posts, 
From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9067 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 246 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, 
But they don't roll like a F-16 though!! 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
