777 Airshow Performance
Impressive how brutal you can bank these beasts. Like the A400M.
But this is briefed, trained and flown by test pilots within tight tolerances.
But this is briefed, trained and flown by test pilots within tight tolerances.
Boeing has soft limits.
Controversial, moi?
Does this mean the 777X , still has no bank angle limitations ? or was it disabled for this demo flight ?
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).
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Just a little to the left. Little more...
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
Only half a speed-brake
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.
That wing is an art-piece, no discussion.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 19th Jan 2022 at 17:18.
Moderator
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!
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!
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
.
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
.
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.
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.
And the 777X went certainly above 45 degrees of bank like at 5:36 with a similar wing to the 787.
: Allen had asked Johnston to make a fly-by over Seafair to show off Boeing's new airliner. Johnston performed the barrel roll during the fly-by, reversed course with a chandelle, and performed a second barrel roll on the way back.[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 JohnsonTo 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:
FP.
Last edited by First_Principal; 19th Jan 2022 at 19:14. Reason: Clarification for those that hadn't heard of Tex's performance.
Only half a speed-brake
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?
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.
They had to be retired because of structural fatigue. And they had high crash rates doing those manoeuvres with a swept wing.
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/2...-Ejections.pdf
http://b-47.com/wp-content/uploads/2...-Ejections.pdf
Moderator
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?