welwitschia
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 6:24 pm

707 Barrel Role

Fri May 20, 2005 6:51 pm

On Tuesday Discovery featured an aviation programme "flying heavy metal" or something like that, discussing the 707 and how it came about etc.
Then they showed footage of the test pilot performing a barrel role. I had heard of this story before and had put it down as a myth. Truely amazing - would this be possible with current airliners and did anyone watch the programme?
 
glidepath73
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:44 pm

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Fri May 20, 2005 7:16 pm

Hi!

I haven't seen the programme, but I saw a other TV-programme in which they showed the barrel role. There exists even a foto, made from the 707. It shows the engines on top of the wing and lake Washington underneath the wing. Really cool!
I think it would be even possible to do a barrel roles for most of the current airliners. I don't know if a 747 or a 380 could do the role without any structural overloads. Would be very interesting to test it!
 scratchchin 

Regards,
Patrick
Aviation! That rocks...
 
MxCtrlr
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 11:22 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Fri May 20, 2005 7:25 pm

Quoting Glidepath73 (Reply 1):
I don't know if a 747 or a 380 could do the role without any structural overloads.

According to what I've read about the famous barrel roll, Tex Johnson chose that particular move because it exerted no abnormal stress on the aircraft, either positive or negative. It did however make for one hell of a show and brought many orders for the 707 for Boeing.

MxCtrlr  bouncy 
DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(
 
backfire
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:01 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Fri May 20, 2005 7:31 pm

If you want to see it, this is a link to a clip showing the roll and an interview with the fellow who performed it:

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/707_roll_video.htm
 
glidepath73
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:44 pm

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Fri May 20, 2005 7:48 pm

Quoting MxCtrlr (Reply 2):
Tex Johnson chose that particular move because it exerted no abnormal stress on the aircraft, either positive or negative.

True, but nobody tried this until today with a 747 for instance....
Why? Would it be to risky somehow?
Aviation! That rocks...
 
NWArocks
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:02 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Fri May 20, 2005 8:14 pm

Barrel Rolls, when executed properly are not particularly stressful to the airframe or "risky". However, the key is "when executed properly". The margin for error in an aircraft not designed for aerobatics just isn't that great.

You might find it interesting that, "back in the day", at instructor school, we used to have a "confidence maneuver" where a tanker (KC-135; 707 variant) and a bomber (B-52) would do "the whiff". The "whiff' was a series of ever greater opposing turns, while climbing and descending, ultimately ending in the aircraft breaking though 90 degrees of bank--all while connected for air refueling!

The whiff demonstrated some of the aircrafts capabilities when properly flown. Now, regarding margins for error...

There was an instance over in the desert after the first gulf war where a tanker flew into the wake vortices of a proceeding craft in a refueling formation. The aircraft experienced rolling moments that exceeded lateral control capabilities. The event didn't last too long (they flew out of the vortice) but the event did exceed structural capabilities--the struts (for the pod mounted engines) are very strong with regards to fore and aft, and up and down loadings; not so for side-loadings--two of the engines (on the same side) were slung off the plane. Note: Boeing built a good jet in the KC-135 and the crew made a successfully two-engine landing.

Now, lastly you wondered if a 747 or 380 could do a barrel roll. I have yet to fly an airbus, but aerodynamically/structurally I see no reason why it wouldn't be capable of doing so. Whether the software would allow the pilots to execute such a maneuver, I have no idea. Boeing's design philosophy is a little different. They'll give you all kinds of warnings and cues, but ultimately allow the pilot to fly the aircraft as he/she deems necessary.

Cheers
 
zkeye
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:05 pm

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Fri May 20, 2005 8:18 pm

I read about this in a Boeing book a while ago. (Sorry I have forgotten which book - it came from a library) Tex Johnson stated that is was totally safe as it was a "zero G" maneuver. He was told by a Boeing exec not to do it again. However they were not all that unhappy that he did it as the publicity was great for them. If he was correct about it being a zero G maneuver (and I guess he would know) then any airliner should be able to do it. A380/747 doing it? shite wouldn't that be a sight?

[Edited 2005-05-20 13:26:46]
Bring out the gimp
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Fri May 20, 2005 8:49 pm

Quoting ZKEYE (Reply 6):
Tex Johnson stated that is was totally safe as it was a "zero G" maneuver.

Don't you mean 1 G.
 
zkeye
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:05 pm

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Fri May 20, 2005 9:11 pm

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 7):
Quoting ZKEYE (Reply 6):
Tex Johnson stated that is was totally safe as it was a "zero G" maneuver.

Don't you mean 1 G.

Quite right - sorry.

Just back from the rugby (Crusaders beat Hurricanes) and not performing at my peak due to large amounts of larger.
Bring out the gimp
 
glidepath73
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:44 pm

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Fri May 20, 2005 9:19 pm

NWArocks

Thanks for your very interesting post!
Would be really amazing to see once a barrel role flown with a 747/380.....

I whish you guys a nice weekend!

Regards,
Patrick
Aviation! That rocks...
 
MxCtrlr
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 11:22 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Fri May 20, 2005 10:43 pm

To further this thread, I do know that a B-727-200 was put into a barrel roll (accidentally however the aircraft and pax survived with no damage from the roll - the subsequent Mach 1 dive and recovery, exacted quite a bit of damage. Of course I am speaking of the TWA flight a number of years ago). I also believe, if memory serves correctly, that CAAC (China Air) also let a B-747 "get away from them" and ended up doing a barrel roll (with no damage to the aircraft from the roll - again, the ensuing flat dive exacted quite a bit of damage to the wing tips - a sort of running joke among "whale" mechanics & engineers that Boeing got the design for the blended winglets from this aircraft's damaged wingtips).

Now, to the other side of that coin, as NWArocks stated, the key phrase is "executed correctly". I read a report somewhere on-line (I can't find it right now) where a European 707, on a test flight, was lost due to the crew's attempting to "recreate" Tex Johnson's barrel roll, and not performing it correctly thereby losing the engines on one side and losing control of the aircraft.

MxCtrlr  bouncy 
DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(
 
User avatar
vzlet
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:34 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Fri May 20, 2005 10:44 pm

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 7):
Don't you mean 1 G

Barrel rolls are generally relatively mild aerobatic manuevers, but they'll always involve more than 1 G, typically at least 2-3 G.
-Mark
"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Fri May 20, 2005 11:08 pm

Quoting MxCtrlr (Reply 2):
Tex Johnson chose that particular move because it exerted no abnormal stress on the aircraft, either positive or negative. It did however make for one hell of a show and brought many orders for the 707 for Boeing.

Do you think He must have tried the Manervue prior to that day on that Aircraft.

Quoting MxCtrlr (Reply 10):
I also believe, if memory serves correctly, that CAAC (China Air) also let a B-747 "get away from them" and ended up doing a barrel roll

Whats the story behind this.

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 7):
Quoting ZKEYE (Reply 6):
Tex Johnson stated that is was totally safe as it was a "zero G" maneuver.

Don't you mean 1 G.

Is a 1G roll possible with a B707.Shouldn't it be a little higher.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Fri May 20, 2005 11:48 pm

Quoting Vzlet (Reply 11):
Barrel rolls are generally relatively mild aerobatic manuevers, but they'll always involve more than 1 G, typically at least 2-3 G.

If flown right, they are always 1G maneuvers.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Fri May 20, 2005 11:50 pm

Quoting NWArocks (Reply 5):
You might find it interesting that, "back in the day", at instructor school, we used to have a "confidence maneuver" where a tanker (KC-135; 707 variant) and a bomber (B-52) would do "the whiff". The "whiff' was a series of ever greater opposing turns, while climbing and descending, ultimately ending in the aircraft breaking though 90 degrees of bank--all while connected for air refueling!

The whiff demonstrated some of the aircrafts capabilities when properly flown. Now, regarding margins for error...

Yes, that was one of several unusual attitudes demonstrated at CFIC (Central Flight Instructors Course) at Castle AFB, CA. It showed the real limitations of the KC-135, B-52, and the aircrews. The Boom Operator and B-52 Pilot were the key positions for these manuvers.

Quoting NWArocks (Reply 5):
There was an instance over in the desert after the first gulf war where a tanker flew into the wake vortices of a proceeding craft in a refueling formation. The aircraft experienced rolling moments that exceeded lateral control capabilities. The event didn't last too long (they flew out of the vortice) but the event did exceed structural capabilities--the struts (for the pod mounted engines) are very strong with regards to fore and aft, and up and down loadings; not so for side-loadings--two of the engines (on the same side) were slung off the plane. Note: Boeing built a good jet in the KC-135 and the crew made a successfully two-engine landing.

That was an ANG KC-135E. There was also a mid-air collision (before Desert Storm) between a KC-135E and an E-3B while they were doing unauthorized formation flying off each others wingtips. The KC-135 lost #3 and #4 engines to seperation and the E-3 lost 25'+ of the left wing and #1 engine. Both airplanes were recovered safely. The careers of the two Pilots and Co-Pilots didn't recover.

Quoting MxCtrlr (Reply 10):
To further this thread, I do know that a B-727-200 was put into a barrel roll (accidentally however the aircraft and pax survived with no damage from the roll - the subsequent Mach 1 dive and recovery, exacted quite a bit of damage. Of course I am speaking of the TWA flight a number of years ago). I also believe, if memory serves correctly, that CAAC (China Air) also let a B-747 "get away from them" and ended up doing a barrel roll (with no damage to the aircraft from the roll - again, the ensuing flat dive exacted quite a bit of damage to the wing tips - a sort of running joke among "whale" mechanics & engineers that Boeing got the design for the blended winglets from this aircraft's damaged wingtips).

The TWA B-727 happened because the crew was playing with deploying the outboard leading edge slats at cruise altitude and speed. IIRC they were over upstate NY. One of the slats deployed slightly before the other side did, rolling the airplane very quickly and then falling off on a wing into a barrel roll. But they were desending rapidly.

The CAAC B-747 happened from FL430. The airplane was on auto-pilot and the crew slowly pulled the power back until it stalled. They lost 25,000'+ trying to recover. They were over the Pacific and going to LAX, I believe.

Quoting ZKEYE (Reply 6):
Tex Johnson stated that is was totally safe as it was a "zero G" maneuver.



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 12):
Is a 1G roll possible with a B707.Shouldn't it be a little higher.
regds
MEL

No, I believe Tex said it was a safe 2G manuver. That is what Boeing thought they designed the B-367-80 to. They discovered later the -80, KC-135, and B-707/720 were actually 3.5G airplanes (operational limitations by the USAF and airlines was 2.5Gs).

You are correct, Mel, a 1G barrel roll is not possible. The manuver is 2Gs minimum (unless you go to negitive Gs).
 
User avatar
vzlet
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:34 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 12:04 am

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 13):
If flown right, they are always 1G maneuvers.

AeroWeanie, I'd submit that a plane's flight path can't be altered without inducing an acceleration.
"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 1:06 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The TWA B-727 happened because the crew was playing with deploying the outboard leading edge slats at cruise altitude and speed. IIRC they were over upstate NY. One of the slats deployed slightly before the other side did, rolling the airplane very quickly and then falling off on a wing into a barrel roll. But they were desending rapidly.

This is the story as I was told it: the TWA crew was applying the "bootleg" maneuver, whereby the breakers for the slats were pulled and the flaps were run out slightly (Flaps5?). The flight engineer wasn't in on the maneuver and seeing the breakers pulled, he reset them. The slats came out. The crew managed to get all but one retracted. It hung, before ripping off. The hang started the rolls. It all happened over the Bay City/Midland area in Michigan. A friend of mine found parts in his front yard the next morning. The "bootlleg" flap droop was later certified and is part of the Valsan/Quietwing winglet mod.

Quoting Vzlet (Reply 15):
AeroWeanie, I'd submit that a plane's flight path can't be altered without inducing an acceleration

You're quite right - the pull to initiate the maneuver is a deviation from 1G flight. Now that I think about it, the point of the barrel roll, as opposed to an aileron roll, is that the loading is constant and positive.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 1:17 am

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 13):
Quoting Vzlet (Reply 11):
Barrel rolls are generally relatively mild aerobatic manuevers, but they'll always involve more than 1 G, typically at least 2-3 G.

If flown right, they are always 1G maneuvers.

Not really, 1G is what is applied to an airplane that is not accelerating or deccelerating. 1G is only acheved in cruise, or standing on the ramp in calm winds. Any gust factor inflight, or on the ground, will produce a G load factor, including normal turns, climbs, or decents, though the load factor may be so small as to not be noticed.

If your airplane has an AOA meter (Angle Of Attack) or accelerorometer, you can see the loads applied to the airplane. In the KC-135, we had both of these instruments.

Boeing really over designs it's airplanes, though that may not be intentional. That started with their model B-277 design. We now know the B-277 as the B-17. Their model B-247 all metal twin was not nearly as strong as the model B-277.

I have to say Vzlet is right with this one, AeroWeanie.
 
curlyheadboy
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:56 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 1:43 am

There were also those two guys that tried a barrel roll with a Beech 99 and only succeeded in digging a smoking hole into the ground...

Link to the ASN report: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19930428-0

Link to CVR transcript: http://www.tailstrike.com/280493.htm
If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 1:58 am

The plane that Tex did the barrel role in, the "Dash-80" was a hand built aircraft, and the historians at Boeing will tell you that it was overbuilt by a factor of 6. The think is built like a tank, albiet a tank that can do a roll Big grin
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 2:06 am

Backfire:
Thanks for the video link. That was amazing.
Bring back the Concorde
 
welwitschia
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 6:24 pm

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 3:23 am

the CAAC was a 747SP and sustained quite some structural damage but whether it did a barrel role - have not heard about it?!
 
boeingnut
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 5:46 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 3:44 am

It was China Airlines that sent the 747SP supersonic, not CAAC or Air China.

China Airlines = Taiwan

CAAC & Air China = PRC

You'd think for an aviation board like this that goes nuts over every time someone spells QANTAS with a U, we'd be able to keep this straight
Excuse me, but what does God need with a starship?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 4:13 am

Quoting Vzlet (Reply 11):
Barrel rolls are generally relatively mild aerobatic manuevers, but they'll always involve more than 1 G, typically at least 2-3 G.



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 12):
Is a 1G roll possible with a B707.Shouldn't it be a little higher.

Well, Tex stated that he "kept the plane to 1G". I am guessing he meant that he kept the Dash-80 to 1G in whatever position in which it was flying. Hence, I am betting that it was actually a 2G roll.

BTW, a Fed-Ex DC-10 was put into more than 1 roll when a disgruntelled soon to be former employee attacked the flight crew and planned to crash the plane into the MEM Superhub but failed. The crew was able to fight him off and they rolled the plane to neutralize him
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
B742
Posts: 3562
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:48 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 4:17 am

I'd like to see the A380 do a Barrel Roll Big grin

Rob!
 
shankly
Posts: 1199
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 10:42 pm

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 6:46 am

The L1011 was rolled (accidentally) during CAA certification for BA

In the US, the FAA requirement was to only take the aircraft to stall warning and then recover. For CAA certification however, the requirement was to take the aircraft to full stall and then recover. So, Lockheed took the 1011 out and full stalled it - then it invited the FAA along and demonstrated to them that the TriStar could enter a deep stall and recover safely. Then the FAA pilot tried it and in the deep stall the wing dropped and he could not recover it - film taken in the chase plane showed that the L1011 rolled inverted during the recovery attempt and finally was pulled out at around 10,000 feet - and the test started at about 25,000 feet! During recovery the aircraft pulled an excessive amount of G loads - the No. 1 test ship had to be hangered until it's structure was completely inspected before returning it to flight status.

Another aircraft that could have been rolled quite safely was the VC-10. Famously G-ASIG was caught in severe CAT over the Andes and during its upset was rolled 90 degrees before being pitched vertically on its nose. It is believed that a similar manouvre would have ripped the engines from 707/DC8/CV990
L1011 - P F M
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 7:57 am

Quoting Shankly (Reply 25):
Another aircraft that could have been rolled quite safely was the VC-10. Famously G-ASIG was caught in severe CAT over the Andes and during its upset was rolled 90 degrees before being pitched vertically on its nose. It is believed that a similar manouvre would have ripped the engines from 707/DC8/CV990

That story about the VC-10 is true. But a simular manuver in an airplane with eingines in under wing pods would not lose their engines. While the manuver will load up to 3Gs it also uses an enormous amount of airspace, in all three axis. The KC-135 has been in simular CAT as the VC-10 was and, although they lost a lot of altitude, the engines didn't come off.

What does cause engines to be slung off (this has also happened to KC-135s) is not the turbalance, but the manuvers used in recovery.
 
shankly
Posts: 1199
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 10:42 pm

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 8:08 am

KC135TopBoom...perhaps I over emphasized the engines being ripped off and should have added wings and tail. The VC-10 just happened to be a magnificently strong beastie. The break up of the BOAC 707 over Mt Fuji in the 60's perhaps provides some sort of comparison, albeit subjective.

regards, shankly
L1011 - P F M
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 8:43 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
No, I believe Tex said it was a safe 2G manuver. That is what Boeing thought they designed the B-367-80 to. They discovered later the -80, KC-135, and B-707/720 were actually 3.5G airplanes (operational limitations by the USAF and airlines was 2.5Gs).

I watch the video almost every week, show it to emphasize the achievement the KC-135 is, since it came from the -80. Tex Johnson, on the video I show, says himself it is a 1G maneuver, completely safe. He said the Boeing execs told him the following week "you know that, now we know that - just don't do it again".

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 19):
The plane that Tex did the barrel role in, the "Dash-80" was a hand built aircraft, and the historians at Boeing will tell you that it was overbuilt by a factor of 6. The think is built like a tank, albiet a tank that can do a roll

They had to be careful, they were continuing in to the jet age while Douglas waited because of what happened to the Comet. This leap forward, while everyone else waited, is probably what made them what they are today. Before the 707 they were #6 overall out of the manufacturers (coming out of WWII) and barely had any pull in civil aviation. The 707, while itself not wildy successful when compared to say the 737, launched a floundering company into a giant.

BTW, it's kind of petty, but the plane that rolled was actually the prototype 367-80, the predecessor to the KC-135 and 707 - but the 707 is longer and wider than the -80.
 
OttoPylit
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:58 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 1:56 pm

Here is a post that I once made in regard to the 707 roll, quoted from Tex Johnston's autobiography:


In regards to Tex Johnston rolling the Dash 80 707 prototype, it was in Seattle over the annual hydrofoil races. Boeing CEO Bill Allen wanted to show his jet off to the world and asked Tex to do a flyby, but only a flyby. Tex says that he knew what the 707 was capable of and if it didn't fly, Boeing would be ruined, as they financed the plane out of their own pockets. He told his copilot that he wanted to show the world what the airplane could do and they would roll the plane. His copilot replied, "They're liable to fire you." Tex stated, "Possibly, but I don't think so." As the came in over the lake, Tex put the airplane into a roll, turned her around and came in and did another one, just so everyone knew they weren't dreaming. As he began the first roll, Bill Allen's mouth dropped. He nudged Larry Bell, CEO of Bell Aircraft, and asked if he could use some of Bell's heart pills, and was angered at Johnston's nerve to do something like that. Larry Bell laughed and said, "Bill, he just sold your airplane."

As Tex landed the Dash 80, he was called into Allen's office to explain himself. He entered the office and told Allen that the airplane was in a coordinated roll, the airplane held 1G at all times(which basically means you have have a cup of water sitting on the dashboard and it not spill) and never knew it was in a roll. He needed to explain the dynamics a little more to Allen. Bill Allen told him, "You know that, we NOW know that, don't do it again." Later that night, Tex was invited to Allen's house for dinner. As he entered, he was tackled by old friend and Eastern President Eddie Rickenbacker who told him something like, "You old scoundrel, why didn't tell me you were going to do that, I would have come with you; I wanted to be there!?"

Whether Bill Allen ever really forgave Tex for the roll or not is unknown.



One interesting thing to note is that the 367-80 is sort of a one of a kind airplane. After being shown to the public, Douglas produced its own jetliner, the DC-8, which was wider than the 707 and could have 3x3 seating. So Boeing had to redesign later versions of the 707 to ensure that airline sales would not go to Douglas. But after widening the fusalage, they had to redesign the wings as well, and in the end, the 367-80 and the 707 as we know it have many differences from each other.
I don't have a microwave, but I do have a clock that occasionally cooks shit.
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 2:10 pm

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 29):
One interesting thing to note is that the 367-80 is sort of a one of a kind airplane.

Indeed it is, and that airplane has a colorful history. Other than being rolled it also had an engine mounted in the tail for a time to test that set up for the 727, even flew with 3 different types of engines at one point. Now that it got moved to the Smithsonian, where it is rightly displayed as a national icon, I have got to make a trip to D.C. to see it - sometime soon! It means a lot to me since I have long worked a derivative of it.
 
StevenUhl777
Posts: 3281
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 11:02 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sat May 21, 2005 3:22 pm

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 29):
In regards to Tex Johnston rolling the Dash 80 707 prototype, it was in Seattle over the annual hydrofoil races.

A.K.A "Seattle Seafair" in these parts...Tex did his famous barrell roll over Lake Washington in 1955 or 1956, not sure which.
And the winner for best actress is....REESE WITHERSPOON for 'Walk the Line'!!!!!!!!
 
OttoPylit
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:58 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sun May 22, 2005 4:59 am

Quoting KC135R (Reply 30):
have got to make a trip to D.C. to see it - sometime soon! It means a lot to me since I have long worked a derivative of it.

I was just up there this week and it has a nice place, settled in between the Air France Concourde(Should be BA) and the Enola Gay, although I am not sure if its the REAL Enola Gay or not. The fence is close enough to where you can almost touch it. You can also walk a catwalk above her and look right into the cockpit and your looking straight down to the seat cushions. Now, if they could have only used a color better than that yellow and brown. Yech!


Got a question for you KC135R. Do the engines the "R" model have really make much more of a difference, as compared to the "E" models? They look a lot more powerful, but was never sure if they made much of a difference inflight. Boy, if I could do it all over, I would have enlisted with a tanker Guard unit and joined as a boom operator, it wouldn't matter if it was a KC-10 or KC-135. Other than pilot, that seems like the job to have.
I don't have a microwave, but I do have a clock that occasionally cooks shit.
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sun May 22, 2005 5:28 am

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 32):
Got a question for you KC135R. Do the engines the "R" model have really make much more of a difference, as compared to the "E" models? They look a lot more powerful, but was never sure if they made much of a difference inflight.

Both the E and R were improvements over the A, but the R is somewhat better:
Thrust per engine: R = right at 22,000 (governed); E = 18,000/engine - so more power, but they both have the same MTOW - the R is just a rocket when it's at low weights especially, the original A model only had about 11,000 pounds of thrust per engine, quite a jump.
According to gloablsecurity.org, compared to the KC-135A the E is 14% more fuel efficient and the R is 27% more fuel efficient (both when compared to the A).
No noise figures on the KC-135E, but it is louder than the R, and the KC-135R is a 98% improvement over the A.

Overall, they are comparable, the R's have a little more power and better fuel consumption - but comparable for sure. The biggest thing is that the CFM56 is "well behaved" compared to the TF-33. The CFM is a low maintenance engine for sure. There are other, mostly minor, modifications to the R that the E never got - for some reason (i.e. rudder pedal steering). The difference in appearance is mostly just that (between the two engines) - the CFM56 is all outer fan - the outer fan alone produces 80% of the total engine thrust, a true high-bypass turbofan. Whereas the TF-33 is mostly core, hence the size difference.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sun May 22, 2005 6:22 am

Quoting Shankly (Reply 27):
KC135TopBoom...perhaps I over emphasized the engines being ripped off and should have added wings and tail. The VC-10 just happened to be a magnificently strong beastie. The break up of the BOAC 707 over Mt Fuji in the 60's perhaps provides some sort of comparison, albeit subjective.

regards, shankly

The BOAC B-707 accident happened in 1962 and, IIRC, the actual break-up of the airplane was pilot induced (although I doubt that was his intentions). There was two other break-ups of B-707s inflight, both caused by exicuting the wrong recovery manuvers.

But, you are correct, shankly, the VC-10 is one hell of a strongly built airplane.

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 32):
Boy, if I could do it all over, I would have enlisted with a tanker Guard unit and joined as a boom operator, it wouldn't matter if it was a KC-10 or KC-135. Other than pilot, that seems like the job to have.

I was a KC-135 Boom Operator from 1970 to 1992, it IS the best job in the world, and would go back and do it again in a heartbeat.

Quoting KC135R (Reply 33):
Both the E and R were improvements over the A, but the R is somewhat better:
Thrust per engine: R = right at 22,000 (governed); E = 18,000/engine - so more power, but they both have the same MTOW

KC135R, you are very close. You are correct on the thrust for the F-108 (CFM-56) and TF-33 (JT-3D) engines. BTW, the KC-135A J-57 engines had 11,500lbs of "dry thrust" and 12,750lbs of "wet thrust" (distilled water agumentation). The MTOGW for each model is:
KC-135A/Q = 297,000lbs
KC-135B (EC-135C) = 305,000lbs
KC-135E = 315,000lbs
KC-135R/T = 322,500lbs to 325,000lbs (depending on individual airframes)

Quoting KC135R (Reply 33):
No noise figures on the KC-135E, but it is louder than the R, and the KC-135R is a 98% improvement over the A.

The KC-135E is 55% quiter than a dry thrust KC-135A (no wet thrust figuers available, but it would be near 70%-75%). Your 98% quiter KC-135R is compared to a wet thrust KC-135A.

The KC-135A, when using water injection for thrust argumentation on a heavy weight take-off was the loudest airplane in the USAF inventory. That is saying a lot when you consider that was the same time frame as the water injected B-52B through G and all of the "century series" fighters.

A heavy weight wet thrust KC-135A put out 145db during T/O roll. Compare that to a heavy weight Concorde at 115db on T/O roll.
 
stirling
Posts: 3897
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sun May 22, 2005 6:49 am

KC-135A and the B-52G.
Man, what a pair.

Bomb/Nav 319AMS Grand Forks AFB 1982-85.

32170K to newly arrived 32130K "We close the flightline when the windchill temp reaches -55F."
To which the 32130K (me) responds, "Gee....Thanks, what's it now?"
32170K looks at his clipboard, "Last report, -48F. Get your ass gone.


Still, I got the frost bite scars on my fingers and hands to prove it....blasted radome screws!, nothing like dropping a FLIR in the middle of the night, with snow up to your you-know-what, and the wind blowing straight from hell, all the while doing it in temperatures that would scare an Eskimo...

No barrell roll stories tho'....However, I came very close to chopping in half, a nasty old 2-star on the alert pad once....serves him right for stickin' his nose up under a ship with faulty bomb doors. Ahhhh, good ole XX580, after all these years isn't it funny how we can remember the numbers as clearly as some of the names of our old buddies? Well, at least I can!
Delete this User
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sun May 22, 2005 7:06 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
The MTOGW for each model is:
KC-135A/Q = 297,000lbs
KC-135B (EC-135C) = 305,000lbs
KC-135E = 315,000lbs
KC-135R/T = 322,500lbs to 325,000lbs (depending on individual airframes)

Thanks, I figured there was a MTOW difference between E and R models, but could not find it anywhere.
 
AR1300
Posts: 1686
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:22 pm

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sun May 22, 2005 8:44 am

Thx for the link Backfire!!Great!!


Mike
You are now free to move about the cabin
 
OttoPylit
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:58 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sun May 22, 2005 9:05 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
I was a KC-135 Boom Operator from 1970 to 1992, it IS the best job in the world, and would go back and do it again in a heartbeat

No doubt, although from my perspective, the KC-10 just looks more comfy. Nice chair instead of laying down with the chin rest. But, I have never done the job, so I can't really compare. But that job beats Command Post by a long shot, at least you have something to do. LOL
I don't have a microwave, but I do have a clock that occasionally cooks shit.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sun May 22, 2005 10:26 am

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 38):
No doubt, although from my perspective, the KC-10 just looks more comfy. Nice chair instead of laying down with the chin rest.

There is one thing the Gucci Bird has to look foreward to. When the last KC-10 flys to the DM Boneyard, she will be refueled, on her way, by the KC-135.

 Wink
 
skymileman
Posts: 577
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2001 2:32 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Sun May 22, 2005 1:22 pm

I tell you what, old Johnston is my hero. That was some amazing flying. I watched the vid of it on the Discovery Wings channel one day. That was awesome.
 
sacflyer
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 8:19 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Mon May 23, 2005 5:42 am

Quoting MxCtrlr (Reply 10):
I also believe, if memory serves correctly, that CAAC (China Air) also let a B-747 "get away from them" and ended up doing a barrel roll (with no damage to the aircraft from the roll - again, the ensuing flat dive exacted quite a bit of damage to the wing tips - a sort of running joke among "whale" mechanics & engineers that Boeing got the design for the blended winglets from this aircraft's damaged wingtips).

If I recall, this 747 was in cruise flight with the autopilot and autothrottles on over the Pacific. As the aircraft was flying through some turbulence the autothrottles were making large adjustments to control the speed of the plane as it rode through the turbulence. At one point, the autothrottles powered back up the engines, but one of the outboard engines did not respond, apparently due to excessive bleed air pressure draw which could have been simply fixed by the Flight Engineer turning off the bleed air on the engine. However, as the crew was trying to figure out the problem, the plane started to slow down and the autopilot was left to cope with the increasing problem of holding heading despite the asymmetric thrust which it did by holding aileron away from the idling engine. Eventually, the aircraft stalled and snaprolled into a steep spiraling dive into a cloud layer. The captain was able to pull the aircraft out of the dive and leveled back out, pulling 5g's in the process. The aircraft diverted to SFO. The wings surprisingly had been bent permanently upwards, about 3 inches IIRC, which was still within tolerance and it was returned to service.

I apologize if I missed some of the details, it has been 15 years since I read the article.
I'm just happy that RR ratings can't be in negative numbers!
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17117
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Mon May 23, 2005 2:07 pm

Quoting MxCtrlr (Reply 10):
I read a report somewhere on-line (I can't find it right now) where a European 707, on a test flight, was lost due to the crew's attempting to "recreate" Tex Johnson's barrel roll, and not performing it correctly thereby losing the engines on one side and losing control of the aircraft.

IIRC that was Lufthansa.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
IRC, the actual break-up of the airplane was pilot induced (although I doubt that was his intentions)

LOL. Understatement worthy of a Brit!
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
N501US
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:51 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Tue May 24, 2005 3:47 am

Can any of you old SAC guys recount the story (or know of links regarding) of the tragic "Thunderhawks" KC135 crash at Fairchild AFB in the late '80s? I remember watching them practice a couple of times at Malmstrom AFB -- quite a scary site. Thanks.
Fools and thieves are well disguised in the temple and the marketplace.....
 
antiuser
Posts: 646
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:43 am

RE: 707 Barrel Role

Tue May 24, 2005 3:34 pm

In September of 1988, a VP 733 was hijacked by a disgruntled construction worker with a gun, he started shooting at the cockpit door, killed a F/A and the co-pilot and then pointed the gun at the pilot, Capt. Murilo, who had been also hit in the leg. The hijacker ordered him to fly to Brasilia. Apparently he wanted to fly the plane into the presidential palace. Capt. Murilo flew the plane in such an angle that made clouds stand in the way of the palace and managed to persuade the ignorant hijacker that it would be impossible to fly that heading. When he realised he was running out of fuel and excuses and noticed the hijacker wasn't holding on to anything, he did a barrel roll and a downward spin, making the hijacker fall and drop his gun. The plane landed safely at GYN where the police arrested the hijacker.

Capt. Murilo then went on to fly DC-10s, still on VP and retired in 1996. He was condecorated by the government of his home state of Minas Gerais and the Brazilian Air Force.
Azzurri Campioni del Mondo!