Superb B1900 Video in Africa!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have a pertinent suggestion for you all, and it is a great one to consider EVERY time that you become engrossed in a PPRUNE thread that requires you to air your testosterone-filled opinions: Why don't we have a "Dick Measuring Contest?" Let's all haul our BIG-BOYS out, lay them on the measuring slab, and see who has the biggest one? It'd surely be more fun than the self-righteous bull****ters telling the fun-filled danger-tossers why there's no fun in risk! 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North of Antarctica
Age: 46
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6-string
Listen Dude,
I have not read your posts here and don't intend to before saying what I am about to say. The point I'm trying to make is I don't know if you're a wa
er or not, but here goes:
I think your suggestion is bad taste, but I think we can all see the point you are trying to make, and I agree with it!!!
I am currently a P1 on the 1900, and I don't think I could ever execute such a manoeuvre, but I am particularly interested in how many of the commentators here are actually aerobatic pilots, and more important, who is suitably qualified to make a scientific and mathematical statement to the apparent absurd manoeuvre executed by the pilot/crew.
Personally I think the pilot demonstrates some level of confidence, and stick - and - rudder skills, to say the least. It appears to me that he/she flies with some rather pin point accuracy, as the manoeuvre, although not right by most PPruners, is executed rather neatly. I am pretty convinced that severy turbulence could cause more structural damage than a perfectly executed 1 G barrel - roll could ever do - and how many guys here have found themselves in thunderstorms/severe turbulence/windshear. I would much rather be in a 1900 during a barrel roll than being in a 1900 flying thrugh weather!!!!
I think before we jump to some really bad conclusions, we must just remember the following:
Aircraft manufacturers also write the manual to protect themselves against litigation of civil nature. The mere fact that it (the 1900) has not been certified for such a manoeuvre does not imply that it can not be executed without damaging the aircraft in the process. Has anybody ever thought about the stupidity of certifying a passenger-carrying aircraft for aerobatics - why bother with the time and money since it is completely irrelevant for the purpose of its intended role (not necessarily a deficit in its design for that intended role).
Each person for himself on this one I think
Cheers
I have not read your posts here and don't intend to before saying what I am about to say. The point I'm trying to make is I don't know if you're a wa
er or not, but here goes:I think your suggestion is bad taste, but I think we can all see the point you are trying to make, and I agree with it!!!
I am currently a P1 on the 1900, and I don't think I could ever execute such a manoeuvre, but I am particularly interested in how many of the commentators here are actually aerobatic pilots, and more important, who is suitably qualified to make a scientific and mathematical statement to the apparent absurd manoeuvre executed by the pilot/crew.
Personally I think the pilot demonstrates some level of confidence, and stick - and - rudder skills, to say the least. It appears to me that he/she flies with some rather pin point accuracy, as the manoeuvre, although not right by most PPruners, is executed rather neatly. I am pretty convinced that severy turbulence could cause more structural damage than a perfectly executed 1 G barrel - roll could ever do - and how many guys here have found themselves in thunderstorms/severe turbulence/windshear. I would much rather be in a 1900 during a barrel roll than being in a 1900 flying thrugh
weather!!!!I think before we jump to some really bad conclusions, we must just remember the following:
Aircraft manufacturers also write the manual to protect themselves against litigation of civil nature. The mere fact that it (the 1900) has not been certified for such a manoeuvre does not imply that it can not be executed without damaging the aircraft in the process. Has anybody ever thought about the stupidity of certifying a passenger-carrying aircraft for aerobatics - why bother with the time and money since it is completely irrelevant for the purpose of its intended role (not necessarily a deficit in its design for that intended role).
Each person for himself on this one I think
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SKYTORT
Listen Dude,
Aircraft manufacturers also write the manual to protect themselves against litigation of civil nature. The mere fact that it (the 1900) has not been certified for such a manoeuvre does not imply that it can not be executed without damaging the aircraft in the process. Has anybody ever thought about the stupidity of certifying a passenger-carrying aircraft for aerobatics - why bother with the time and money since it is completely irrelevant for the purpose of its intended role (not necessarily a deficit in its design for that intended role).
Aircraft manufacturers also write the manual to protect themselves against litigation of civil nature. The mere fact that it (the 1900) has not been certified for such a manoeuvre does not imply that it can not be executed without damaging the aircraft in the process. Has anybody ever thought about the stupidity of certifying a passenger-carrying aircraft for aerobatics - why bother with the time and money since it is completely irrelevant for the purpose of its intended role (not necessarily a deficit in its design for that intended role).
6-String
Check your PMs for a picture of my big boy on the measuring slab...
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ray Darr
Captain Alvin "Tex" Johnston and Co-Captain James Gannett performed TWO perfect rolls in a Boeing Dash 80 over SEATTLE (at the "Seafair" Festival), watched by some 200,000 people, in 1955.
Looks like there different versions of the same event (from aviationexplorer.net)
The story after the roll...
The plane lands at Boeing field and Tex gets out and starts to walk away from the plane. A Boeing official runs over to Tex and tells him Mr. Allen wants to see him now. Mr. Allen is the president of Boeing.
So Tex heads off across the street to the Boeing Exec offices and into Mr. Allens office.
Tex walks in. Mr Allen from behind his desk says "How are Tex...Hows the family"? Tex answers the boss.
Mr Allen the says "I hear you rolled the plane today, Tex".
Tex says quietly....."Yes sir I did".
Mr Allen answers..."Don't do it again.......Bye Tex..say hello to the wife..".
About the Aircraft...
The Boeing 367-80 was the name of the "prototype" of both the 707/720 commercial transport/military transport/military tanker/military communications plane and the 717/739 (KC-135 etc) military transport/tanker. It was called the "Dash-80" and although 707 was eventually written on the tail (and it was registered N70700), it wasn't really a 707 so much as a pre-aircraft, a basic-built demonstrator.
Tex Johnston did the barrel roll and even if test pilots back then were different, the company was stunned by it and whatever the exact conversation was like, he apparently came close to losing his job. But the roll seems to have impressed the military and to have gotten Boeing the large contract for the KC-135.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Close to space
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awesome, I want to go back to Africa now.
Irresponsible.......yeah I guess so but come on............You know which one of us hasnt done something similar or with similar possible results. I mean yeah your supposed to fill in your logbook every day but hey sometimes it doesnt get done for months. Now I am not trying to draw fire here but just hope people see what I am saying. At least a few years from now the dude can sit in a bar and tell the b1900 roll story some of us here can tell our own storys and maybe match or exceed it for lunacy but one thing is for sure an easyjet cadet will never be able to tell a story like that. Flying in AFrica WE LOVE IT.
Maximum respect to all the African flyers out there that work in some really harsh places and under the worst of conditions. Hats off, if you want to have a little fun once in a while go for it. (Legal note: This in no way implies that I endorse rolling a b1900 or 707)[/I]
PS I know i am a cr@p speller so none of the english teachers we sometimes get on here, thanks. Oh yeah I know not doing your log book cant have the same results, just saying that we dont all follow the law to the letter all the time.
Irresponsible.......yeah I guess so but come on............You know which one of us hasnt done something similar or with similar possible results. I mean yeah your supposed to fill in your logbook every day but hey sometimes it doesnt get done for months. Now I am not trying to draw fire here but just hope people see what I am saying. At least a few years from now the dude can sit in a bar and tell the b1900 roll story some of us here can tell our own storys and maybe match or exceed it for lunacy but one thing is for sure an easyjet cadet will never be able to tell a story like that. Flying in AFrica WE LOVE IT.
Maximum respect to all the African flyers out there that work in some really harsh places and under the worst of conditions. Hats off, if you want to have a little fun once in a while go for it. (Legal note: This in no way implies that I endorse rolling a b1900 or 707)[/I]
PS I know i am a cr@p speller so none of the english teachers we sometimes get on here, thanks. Oh yeah I know not doing your log book cant have the same results, just saying that we dont all follow the law to the letter all the time.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Where ever they need me
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this talk about stress or no stress on the airframe, lets consider the stresses to the gyros and gyro driven instruments.
I recall an incident a few years ago where the instruments in a Twin Otter began to pack up. They were replaced, but soon after the replacement instruments also began giving hassles. The complete system was checked by the baffled instrument shop, looking for incorrect voltages or suction overspeeding the gyros, but the problems continued.
It was later found that the pilot of this particular aircraft had performed a barrel roll or two. Nothing too stressful, nice and smooth....
Once he disappeared, so did the instrument problems.
Lets hope that if this 1900's instruments or gyros fail, it's one at a time and not all together while doing a let-down to some murky airport.
I recall an incident a few years ago where the instruments in a Twin Otter began to pack up. They were replaced, but soon after the replacement instruments also began giving hassles. The complete system was checked by the baffled instrument shop, looking for incorrect voltages or suction overspeeding the gyros, but the problems continued.
It was later found that the pilot of this particular aircraft had performed a barrel roll or two. Nothing too stressful, nice and smooth....
Once he disappeared, so did the instrument problems.
Lets hope that if this 1900's instruments or gyros fail, it's one at a time and not all together while doing a let-down to some murky airport.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The wrong side of town.
Posts: 193
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not the low g roll that this guy does that worries , its the numerous times that he's cocked the manouvre up while practising , with the resultant hi g recovery that would concern me re the structural integrity of the aerie.
Does one also need an inverted oil system to fly inverted with a PT engine ?
Does one also need an inverted oil system to fly inverted with a PT engine ?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: HAHAHEHE LAND
Age: 63
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ750
After reading all of the above i think that we have all done some stupid things early on in our careers but this takes the cake. The aircraft was not designed or certified for this type of flying so why do it.
I suppose the same could be said about a Harvard skiing on the Vaal River(NO FLOATS INSTALLED).
What is the difference between an SAA trained pilot and a contract pilot doing something in an aeroplane for which it was not designed for.
Any thoughts
I suppose the same could be said about a Harvard skiing on the Vaal River(NO FLOATS INSTALLED).
What is the difference between an SAA trained pilot and a contract pilot doing something in an aeroplane for which it was not designed for.
Any thoughts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Behind 1480mm RHA equivalent
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAA pilots are Skygods, untouchable by mortal man, and can do no wrong. Warm air currents hold them constantly aloft, and angels stroke their wings. Contract pilots on the other hand, are naughty little boys, who wear their underwear over their heads, and need constant attention from our fearless managers lest we accidentally wander off, fall over, and can't get up again.
At least, thats what they're trying to tell us apparently.
At least, thats what they're trying to tell us apparently.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....
Next time I attempt a barrel roll in my DHC-8, ill have to remember to get rid of those pesky spoilers, trying to dump halfway through the roll. And whats a ****** anyway? I see this word used a lot.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shrike200
SAA pilots are Skygods, untouchable by mortal man, and can do no wrong. Warm air currents hold them constantly aloft, and angels stroke their wings. Contract pilots on the other hand, are naughty little boys, who wear their underwear over their heads, and need constant attention from our fearless managers lest we accidentally wander off, fall over, and can't get up again.
At least, thats what they're trying to tell us apparently.
At least, thats what they're trying to tell us apparently.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London. UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rolling, rolling, rolling... rawhide!
Yep. Them cowboys just won't stick to herding cattle and insist on showing their bravado in an aircraft. I know of at least one Arrow rolled by a destructor at 43 A@* S#%**l but alas cannot remember the reg.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Behind 1480mm RHA equivalent
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least one Arrow? Try all of them dude, plus just about all the Cherokee's too.......
This is my problem with this kind of thing - everybody reckons it's fine if THEY do it just once - so the things end up getting rolled plenty over the years. Sure, this guy rolled the 1900 quite well, it probably barely felt it.....but it has to last quite a few years still, and over those years you can bet a couple of other guys are going to reckon they've got the magic touch, and once again it will be fine if only THEY roll it, 'just this once'.....meanwhile, the poor plane is on it's fifth or sixth barrel roll, something it was never even designed to do once, let alone five or six times (or more). So please, consider your buddy who flies the plane after you, and just don't do it. Pay for a flip in a Pitts or something when you get home, they roll much better anyway. I reckon just about everybody here with the vaguest of co-ords could roll a 1900, it's not like it's a death defying move anyway....like I said, do it properly in a plane made for it though. You're just stroking your own ego doing it in a transport plane, and shafting your buddies.
This is my problem with this kind of thing - everybody reckons it's fine if THEY do it just once - so the things end up getting rolled plenty over the years. Sure, this guy rolled the 1900 quite well, it probably barely felt it.....but it has to last quite a few years still, and over those years you can bet a couple of other guys are going to reckon they've got the magic touch, and once again it will be fine if only THEY roll it, 'just this once'.....meanwhile, the poor plane is on it's fifth or sixth barrel roll, something it was never even designed to do once, let alone five or six times (or more). So please, consider your buddy who flies the plane after you, and just don't do it. Pay for a flip in a Pitts or something when you get home, they roll much better anyway. I reckon just about everybody here with the vaguest of co-ords could roll a 1900, it's not like it's a death defying move anyway....like I said, do it properly in a plane made for it though. You're just stroking your own ego doing it in a transport plane, and shafting your buddies.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shrike200
At least one Arrow? Try all of them dude, plus just about all the Cherokee's too.......
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Close to space
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not trying to stir things up here or saying its fine to do this sort of thing. BUT how many aircraft have crashed because they lost a wing or some other structural failure in flight? How many of those have been put down to an over stressed airframe due to misshandling. I truly think a few rolls in the life of an aircraft cant do much airframe harm. Harder than normal landings would stress the plane a lot more than a broll would, and I am sure these happen a lot more in the life of the plane than do b rolls. Again I stress it SHOULD not be done but its a bit dramatic to say that if you do it the machine is going to crash in the futere because of it.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Behind 1480mm RHA equivalent
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not *going* to crash, sure - but if you do it, you're doing something the designers didn't factor into the operating cycle lifespan of the machine. Perhaps aircraft haven't crashed but some have quite possibly been withdrawn from service when cracks are discovered during major inspections.