777 Airshow Performance

[punkalouver]

Slightly out of typical airline limits but impressive nonetheless.

Boeing 777X Vertical Takeoff Flying Display at 2021 Dubai Airshow - YouTube

[DaveReidUK]

And they say the camera never lies ...

[Less Hair]

Impressive how brutal you can bank these beasts. Like the A400M.
But this is briefed, trained and flown by test pilots within tight tolerances.

[ATC Watcher]

Does this mean the 777X , still has no bank angle limitations ? or was it disabled for this demo flight ?

[Less Hair]

Boeing has soft limits.

[M.Mouse]

Does this mean the 777X , still has no bank angle limitations ? or was it disabled for this demo flight ?

The current B777 and B787 models have a combination of aural, visual and tactile warnings when banking beyond 35° bank. The tactile warning is in the form of the control wheel input being resisted and, if you let go of the control wheel, will roll the aircraft back to less than 30° of bank. I would guess that the B777X will be the same.

It is a fundamentallly different philosophy from that of Airbus in that Boeing will allow a pilot to fly the aircraft outside of normal operational parameters whereas Airbus prevent a pilot from doing so when in normal control law (if my Airbus understanding is correct).

[Moony123]

It is a fundamentallly different philosophy from that of Airbus in that Boeing will allow a pilot to fly the aircraft outside of normal operational parameters whereas Airbus prevent a pilot from doing so when in normal control law (if my Airbus understanding is correct).

Yes and no. At least on the A320/330 you could bank up to 67 degrees. Releasing the sidestick when beyond 33 degrees and the bus would return back to 33 degrees. There are some protections that stop you doing things you really shouldn't want to be doing (High AOA, High speed protections, etc), but for the most part you can fly it how you want.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Recovering aviation enthusiasts shouldn't be allowed to view such video clips . . . (sigh).

[FlightDetent]

What stops a cameraman from tiling his kit when the plane is overhead, creating a stunning sensational manoeuvre on the videotape? Not like this would enable to label the resulting YouTube clip as 'thrilling / unseen / insane' and fish for even more views / clicks...

That wing is an art-piece, no discussion.

[andrasz]

Does this mean the 777X , still has no bank angle limitations ?

The 777X has, but the camera hasn't... :P

[Pilot DAR]

Beyond the wow factor, I can't really see how this type of demonstration flying helps to sell airliners. Military airplanes, I see, airliners, I don't. Is an airline exec sitting in an airshow chalet watching that, and thinking to himself: "My passengers would be really pleased if my airline could offer them that service!". I think not.

I think that airplane manufacturers do themselves a dis service by permitting [encouraging] this type of flying at airshows. I know that my friend, a demo pilot for a large airplane manufacturer, had to answer some very awkward questions asked by the AAIB in respect of the crash for which he was PIC. He had to explain why he was flying an airplane during an airshow outside its operating limitations, though following instruction provided to him by his boss, that that was what was to be flown. By the way, his boss was flying another of the company's demonstrator planes at the same time, and just didn't have the accident, but was also exceeding the limitations for dramatic effect.

It puts pilots in a really difficult position when they understand an instruction to fly outside the airplane's limits for airshow/sales demonstration reasons. If it were a formal design approval flight test, there would be a risk/benefit analysis before the flight. I wonder how that analysis looks for an airshow.

A session I participated in during flight test training discussed exactly this: You, as a test pilot, with the most experience on the new type, will be asked to demonstrate it at airshows. It's up to you to do that safely, and fly within limits. Manufacturers should respect that, and encourage demonstration flying which at least appears compliant - particularly Boeing, with pitch up maneuvers!

[tdracer]

You can do interesting things with the camera angle/perspective.
Several years back there was a similar video of a 787 at an airshow (I'm thinking it was Paris but wouldn't swear to it). There was some outrage expressed on PPRuNe about how dangerous it was and the excessive bank and climb angles. I just happened to run into the Boeing pilot who was flew that demo and asked him about it - he stated they never exceeded 45 degrees from horizonal at any time (either climb or bank) - although in the video it appeared to be well in excess of 45 degrees. He said that was all due to the camera angles and perspectives.
He also stated they practiced the show routine numerous times out of Moses Lake (central Washington state).
Several posters on PPRuNe who watched the video called BS on the 45 degree max, but they only watched the video - the pilot was actually there :rolleyes:.

[Chiefttp]

As far as banking these larger aircraft, I flew C-141’s, and DC-8’s which had conventional cable/hydraulic flight controls. Then I transitioned to the C-17, which is a much larger aircraft that has a fly by wire flight control system, the responsiveness of the flight controls and quickness was impressive. We regularly banked up to and past 60 degrees with just a flick of one’s wrist. Matter of fact, I took a instrument checkride in the simulator after I separated my shoulder and just flew with my wrist..attempting 60 degree banks in a C-141 was a two hand on the yoke affair and lots of muscle.

[Less Hair]

The A400M can bank to IIRC 117 degrees.

And the 777X went certainly above 45 degrees of bank like at 5:36 with a similar wing to the 787.
https://youtu.be/P66Kf17-fSc

[First_Principal]

Beyond the wow factor, I can't really see how this type of demonstration flying helps to sell airliners.

Tex Johnson would disagree with you :p: Allen had asked Johnston to make a fly-by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flypast) over Seafair to show off Boeing's new airliner. Johnston performed the barrel roll during the fly-by, reversed course with a chandelle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandelle), and performed a second barrel roll on the way back.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Johnston#cite_note-Johnston-1) The following Monday, Allen called Johnston to his office and asked what he thought he was doing, and responded with "I was selling airplanes". From Alvin M Johnson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Johnston)

To give some background - Johnson famously rolled the prototype Dash 80 (forerunner to the KC-135 & 707) over Seattle in 1955, Bill Allen was president of Boeing at the time. There is video, and and impressive photograph taken from inside the 'plane across Seattle with an upside-down engine projecting from the wing: Boeing 707 roll

FP.

[FlightDetent]

FP you may have ommited the famous video where himself of latter years admits he should had never done so. There's a very strange emotion in his face, not sure exactly how to call it. Saddened wisdom?

[megan]

A well trained pilot can do amazing things, irrespective of the type or limitations in the manual, the manual for the B-47 said aerobatics were strictly prohibited, but then they introduced toss bombing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cIgTAtj4E4

[Less Hair]

They had to be retired because of structural fatigue. And they had high crash rates doing those manoeuvres with a swept wing.

[megan]

The vast majority of B-47 losses seem to be during take off & landing, mid airs are many, as is stalling (a particularly wild ride as wing flex caused crew to be bounced around), particularly while in flight refueling. Being crewed with 500 hour pilots adds to the mix. Structural fatigue was an issue as the science was in its infancy.

http://b-47.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Boeing-B-47-Losses-and-Ejections.pdf

[Pilot DAR]

A major difference between a military bomber being rolled, and a modern airliner being rolled is who is doing it, their recent aerobatic experience, and why they're doing it. The military pilot was probably very well practiced at aerobatics in other types, so the maneuver itself was not new, just the type. So flying errors or lack of precision were less likely. And, there was an operational need to fly these maneuvers. A Boeing pilot might have aerobatic experience, but I opine, not as much as the military pilot, nor as recently. More importantly, why fly aerobatics in a modern airliner? What's the operational need? What need is balancing the increased risk?

[Ancient Mariner]

I have a video of a A380 doing something similar during the airshow in Singapore circa 2004/5. Now that was impressive.
Per

[DaveReidUK]

The trick is to get the camera behind the aircraft, then you can call the takeoff vertical when it's nowhere close. :O

[Less Hair]

Here is a nice one training for the Paris Air Show:
https://youtu.be/KYbM-3E11Qo

[tdracer]

Here is a nice one training for the Paris Air Show:

That's the one where the pilot in command swears they never exceeded 45 degrees from the horizontal. The 'vertical' effect is all camera angle and perspective.
Given that even a very light 787 has a thrust to weight ratio around ~.5, it would be hard to stay near vertical for any length of time.

[DaveReidUK]

That's the one where the pilot in command swears they never exceeded 45 degrees from the horizontal. The 'vertical' effect is all camera angle and perspective.
Given that even a very light 787 has a thrust to weight ratio around ~.5, it would be hard to stay near vertical for any length of time.

Quite so.

The 787-9 display at Farnborough in 2014 was equally impressive, with the "near-vertical" takeoff involving a pitch-up to almost 30° :O

[megan]

A major difference between a military bomber being rolled, and a modern airliner being rolled is who is doing it, their recent aerobatic experience, and why they're doing itThe Concorde was rolled a couple of times,guess they did it because they could. ;)

[FlightDetent]

The Concorde was rolled a couple of times,guess they did it because they could not be caught. ;)Fixed that for ya.:}

[safetypee]

… because they could not be caught.
At least two modern commercial aircraft evaluated unusual attitudes - 4 jet rolled and a small twin rolled and looped.
This was necessary due to unexpected behaviour with recently installed first-generation digital avionics during flight test - manoeuvres and ‘g’ loading. So much for ‘its only changing existing logic into digital computation’.

As recalled the issues involved rate of change of combinations of parameters used to determine the validity of input data - working / failed (or just not computed), EGPWS, ACAS pull up. Thence with a part-system shutdown, e.g. air-data; many other systems ‘failed’ because of the highly integrated design. cf 737 MAX
Also; digital interface for compass F28 / F100, average heading, 360 or 0 for North (360/2 = …); and F22 latitude, +- 180.

Although the capabilities of the aircraft were known these were not used in sales demonstrations. Nor in non-public pilot evaluations - don't frighten the customer, but many chief pilots were very concerned about a real engine shut down or full stall.

The hard sell was cost, range capability, load / field performance, and looking right for the task. Airshows involved tight displays, planned on 45 deg with 60 -90 over-bank, and pitch-up as available from power / aero D.

Photo shoots similarly depended on the context of prospective customer operations. Head of State … or … clandestine military ops; places more than manoeuvre.

[Spooky 2]

Continental Airlines had a Captain roll a B727-200 back in the mid seventies. The airplane was being ferried back to LAX at night no less, I believe from BOI. No pax, but a full complement of FA's onboard of which none noticed. The Captains was later terminated, and the other two crew were given some other disciplinary "counseling" after the FAA became aware of this stunt. The Capt tried to justify this behavior by calling attention to the fact that CAL had a Saberliner 65 that the flight instructor/check airman rolled on several occasions.

The 727 had a very high roll rate with half speed brakes and 250kts which made this an easy maneuver to accomplish.

[Pilot DAR]

I'm sure that even the Sabreliner was not intended for rolls, though, being largely based upon the Sabre Jet fighter, it was probably amply able to be rolled by a competent pilot - like maybe a former military pilot. I have no qualification to comment on rolling airliners, other than to say that none are certified for it. Aerobatics are one of those things where if you do it right, and nothing goes wrong, it may be able to be done within a normal category airplane's structural limits. But, if you get it wrong, or something goes wrong, it goes so wrong, so fast that the plane is damaged, or it's an flight break up or smoking hole. Flight test is different thing, and rarely done in front of an invited crowd of spectators.

Several accidents of non aerobatic types being flown aerobatically both for "fun" and at airshows, come to mind. What might have worked, didn't. A few attempted aerobatics in unapproved types were insurance claims, for an airplane later found to be bent. All the company pilots said "It wasn't me" - well... it was two of you!

To me, a good sales demonstration opportunity is blurred if the demonstration is including things that I'm going to be told I cannot do with the product if I buy it! Then why demonstrate it!?! It's like the pointless car ads, which show the shiny new car screaming through the desert, with a cloud of dust growing from drifted turns and full stroke suspension travel - and the words at the bottom say "Professional driver, closed course". Okay, then do you have any other cars I should consider, as I'm not a professional driver, and I'd like to drive on public roads!

[Maoraigh1]

"Continental Airlines had a Captain roll a B727-200 back in the mid seventies. The airplane was being ferried back to LAX at night no less, I believe from BOI. No pax, but a full complement of FA's onboard of which none noticed."
Roll or Barrel Roll?

[Spooky 2]

Sorry but I do not know the answer to that.

[Nil by mouth]

Several accidents of non aerobatic types being flown aerobatically both for "fun" and at airshows, come to mind. What might have worked, didn't. A few attempted aerobatics in unapproved types were insurance claims, for an airplane later found to be bent. All the company pilots said "It wasn't me" - well... it was two of you!


The 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash was an example of a military aircraft taken beyond its operational limits with disastrous consequences.

[Pilot DAR]

Yes, I think that that B-52 pilot forgot for a moment that B-52's don't have ailerons at the wingtips. It was the wrong time to forget that, just when he needed them....

[GlobalNav]

The 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash was an example of a military aircraft taken beyond its operational limits with disastrous consequences.

It wasn’t just the airplane beyond its limits. The aircraft commander was writing a check that his balance was not sufficient to cover.

[megan]

I'm sure that even the Sabreliner was not intended for rollsFunny that you should mention the Sabreliner DAR, many, many years ago saw Bob Hoover put on a show at Dayton in the aircraft, rolled it as soon as the wheels were off the ground on take off, raised gear on completion then proceeded with a display that included every aerobatic maneuver you could imagine save for a spin, included a vertical climb into a tail slide before pitching over (I mean pitch, not stall turn), engines didn't seem to complain with the air flow coming from 180°.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_mRy9g3c5w

Still had it at 91 years of age.

[andrasz]

"Continental Airlines had a Captain roll a B727-200 back in the mid seventies. The airplane was being ferried back to LAX at night no less, I believe from BOI. No pax, but a full complement of FA's onboard of which none noticed."
Roll or Barrel Roll?
Had to be barrel roll for the FAs not to notice. A well executed barrel roll can be done in any aircraft (which of course is not saying it should be...) as all loads will remain in designed range. There is the classic video of Bob Hoover pouring tea while doing a barrel roll.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2-9BL7sllk

[Spooky 2]

There is a rather well known story about a certain well known Lear pilot out of VNY, who while taking Andy Williams to LAS rolled the Lear 24 while Williams was taking a pee. Supposedly didn't spill a drop.

[B2N2]

None of this is “flying outside the envelope” or “exceeding limitations”.
Maximum performance take off, no assumed temp no derate.
Don’t forget that twins are certified to have an engine failure while still on the runway, continue to accelerate and climb out, all at max take off weight.
They are stupendously overpowered and therefore these airshows look outrageous.
It’s not really….that’s just what the thing can do…..empty.

[Pilot DAR]

None of this is “flying outside the envelope” or “exceeding limitations”.

Probably. However, I'm confident that the 787 is not approved for aerobatics

aerobatic maneuver means a maneuver where a change in the attitude of an aircraft results in a bank angle greater than 60 degrees, an abnormal attitude or an abnormal acceleration not incidental to normal flying;

I can roll a non aerobatic airplane, and not exceed any limitations, nor fly outside its approved envelope, but it's still aerobatics, and not permitted for non aerobatic airplanes.