Very Cool B757 Low pass
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 852
- Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm
- rotateandfly
- Rank 5
- Posts: 386
- Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:53 am
- Location: right here
If you're an old guy, don't bother reading this.
If you're a new guy ... keep in mind that to satisfy engine-out requirements, a modern two-engine transport-category aircraft will have much more excess thrust, when all engines are turning, as compared to a four-engine aircraft.
For this run, I'm sure they were light on pax, baggage and fuel, which would increase the thrust-to-weight ratio even more.
If you're a new guy ... keep in mind that to satisfy engine-out requirements, a modern two-engine transport-category aircraft will have much more excess thrust, when all engines are turning, as compared to a four-engine aircraft.
For this run, I'm sure they were light on pax, baggage and fuel, which would increase the thrust-to-weight ratio even more.
-
- Rank 0
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:50 am
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:15 am
- Location: Right beside my dog again...
He's gotta keep positive g doesn't he?... it's an airliner for kryste sake! The roll you're looking for would've had a bad ending I think. If he'd rolled it Bob Hoover style, with positive g all around (it sure looked to me like he had the energy for that?) I bet it would have looked like crap from the ground.... big ugly barrel roll...
I give the guy top marks for that. Best lookin' airliner flyby I've seen yet.
I give the guy top marks for that. Best lookin' airliner flyby I've seen yet.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:15 am
- Location: Right beside my dog again...
- fingersmac
- Rank 7
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:17 pm
um .... I can't believe that nobody here is familiar with Tex Johnston's 367-80 roll at the Seattle Hydroplane races.
It was the 707 (and KC-135) prototype. Tex (Boeing's chief test pilot) rolled it. Twice. At 1500 feet.
Google it. There are lots of still photos and videos of it on the net.
P.S. It ain't a barrel roll. It ain't a snap roll. It ain't a slow roll. It ain't a torque roll.
It's an aileron (or ballistic) roll which is not ugly in the least, and properly flown, has a little bit of positive G while inverted.
Transport Canada of course would have a cow if someone like Tex rolled a Boeing, but is anyone here old enough to remember the fiasco when a Transport Canada test pilot tried to fly the 747 straight and level? He did MILLIONS of dollars worth of damage. He had a funny name Wordsworth or Wormsworth or something like that. An RMC grad.
It was the 707 (and KC-135) prototype. Tex (Boeing's chief test pilot) rolled it. Twice. At 1500 feet.
Google it. There are lots of still photos and videos of it on the net.
P.S. It ain't a barrel roll. It ain't a snap roll. It ain't a slow roll. It ain't a torque roll.
It's an aileron (or ballistic) roll which is not ugly in the least, and properly flown, has a little bit of positive G while inverted.
Transport Canada of course would have a cow if someone like Tex rolled a Boeing, but is anyone here old enough to remember the fiasco when a Transport Canada test pilot tried to fly the 747 straight and level? He did MILLIONS of dollars worth of damage. He had a funny name Wordsworth or Wormsworth or something like that. An RMC grad.
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:48 pm
- Location: Vancouver, B.C.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:15 am
- Location: Right beside my dog again...
No. For maximum confusion, a roll around the longitudinal axis is referred to as a "slow roll" despite the fact that it is routinely executed as fast as possible.I thought an aileron roll was one where you kept the fuselage right on centerline and rolled around it
Even that isn't quite a correct definition of a "slow roll", according to the hallowed "red book" .... it technically a roll aligned with the aircraft's direction of travel. The slower the rate of roll, and the slower the airspeed of the roll, the more fuselage may have to "rock" as the nose is kept up with forward stick while inverted, and top rudder while in knife edge.
And then there's "dutch roll" which is hardly ever used correctly.
Well said. The aileron roll is named so because only the ailerons are used throughout the roll. Without compensation from the elevator and rudder, the nose of the aeroplane will drop due to loss of vertical component of lift throughout the roll (unless on vertical up/downline), thus the reason for a slight pitch-up before executing the roll.Hedley wrote:No. For maximum confusion, a roll around the longitudinal axis is referred to as a "slow roll" despite the fact that it is routinely executed as fast as possible.I thought an aileron roll was one where you kept the fuselage right on centerline and rolled around it
Even that isn't quite a correct definition of a "slow roll", according to the hallowed "red book" .... it technically a roll aligned with the aircraft's direction of travel. The slower the rate of roll, and the slower the airspeed of the roll, the more fuselage may have to "rock" as the nose is kept up with forward stick while inverted, and top rudder while in knife edge.
And then there's "dutch roll" which is hardly ever used correctly.
In the "slow-roll" (in the high-performance aerobatic aeroplanes of today, quite the misnomer) the elevator and rudder are used to keep the fuselage on the "centerline" of travel.
Right, Hedley?
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:49 am
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
" thus the reason for a slight pitch-up before executing the roll. "
Exactly, however it may produce better results if you use more than a slight pitch-up prior to aileron application in many light aerobatic aeroplanes.
Cat
Exactly, however it may produce better results if you use more than a slight pitch-up prior to aileron application in many light aerobatic aeroplanes.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.