Looks real to me, and I know its possible. But its too insane for me to believe. Those chicas though, I didn't see no damn plane in the video

Oh and skip to :40 to see the plane and past the weird random music and dancing.

[This message has been edited by nitroheadz28 (edited 01-21-2014).]

Naaaaahhhhh. No way.
Maybe at a few thousand feet, but not during a freaking landing approach. Should have gone into the ground like a lawn dart.

LOL..........good fake job.

747 is capable, but not at that altitude, you'd have to be on a suicide mission to even attempt it.

Anything is possible...... Just go to Google and in the search type: do a barrel roll. You will have your answer!

quote Originally posted by California Kid: LOL..........good fake job.

Thats what I thought, it really does look/ sound the part though!

Raydar- why do you say not at that altitude out of curiosity?

[This message has been edited by nitroheadz28 (edited 01-21-2014).]

There was a plane ???

quote Originally posted by nitroheadz28: Thats what I thought, it really does look/ sound the part though! Raydar- why do you say not at that altitude out of curiosity?

Practically: because the pilot would lose his license immediately (towered airport, controllers have "duty to report" etc.). Aerobatics below a certain altitude (I think it's 1000ft in Canada) require a special permit.

Also, the perspective in the video is off. The thing looks closer to the camera than its wingspan away from the ground when it's inverted.

And then there's the fact that any pilot doing that at a couple hundred feet (maybe!) in a 747 is suicidal.

quote Originally posted by nitroheadz28: Thats what I thought, it really does look/ sound the part though! Raydar- why do you say not at that altitude out of curiosity?

Here is a -80, the prototype 707 doing an aileron role, look at the altitude drop



Now look at the size difference between a 707 and 747..



Imagine how much altitude the 747 is going to lose on the same maneuver. Let alone with a 211" wing-span that wing would have touched the ground...

[This message has been edited by Fiero_Fan_88 (edited 01-21-2014).]

quote Originally posted by nitroheadz28: Raydar- why do you say not at that altitude out of curiosity?

Because you will need more altitude then that.
You drop some on a barrel roll...in that boat you will drop a lot!

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Naaaaahhhhh. No way. Maybe at a few thousand feet, but not during a freaking landing approach. Should have gone into the ground like a lawn dart.

I agree, Its possible up in the air but there would have been a significant drop during a barrel roll with that size of plane. It would have hit the ground hard.

The low altitude isn't the only issue. In landing configuration, it would be awfully easy to stall. As bank increases, the chance of stalling goes way up.

Here is what actually happens when a 747 does an aileron role... 2:30; Over 30,000ft; and a lot of damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik..._Airlines_Flight_006

The accident occurred ten hours into the regular service between Taipei and Los Angeles. The Boeing 747SP-09 was 350 miles (550 km) northwest of San Francisco, cruising at an altitude of 41,000 ft (12,500 m). The flight was in the hands of an experienced crew, consisting of Captain Min-Yuan Ho (55), First Officer Ju Yu Chang (53), Flight Engineer Kuo-Win Pei (55), Relief Captain Chien-Yuan Liao (53), and Relief Flight Engineer Po-Chae Su Shih Lung (41).[1] Captain Ho was a very experienced pilot with approximately 15,500 flight hours. The first officer was also experienced, with more than 7,700 hours to his credit, and the flight engineer, like the captain, was highly experienced with approximately 15,500 hours of flight time. The incident occurred while the main crew was on duty.
The sequence began when the No. 4 (starboard outermost) engine stalled at a low thrust setting and flamed out. That engine had failed twice during previous flights (while cruising at FL 410 and 430). In each of those cases, the engine was restarted after descending to a lower altitude. The maintenance response to the logbook entries that noted the problems included engine inspection, fuel filter drainage and replacement, vane controller inspection and replacement, water drainage from Mach probes, insufficient modules, and other filter replacements. None of those acts fixed the recurrent stalling and flameout problem of the No. 4 engine.[1][2]

After the flameout, the captain instructed the flight engineer to attempt to restart the engine, while the plane remained at FL 410 (41,000 feet) with the autopilot still engaged and the Bleed air on. That was contrary to the flight manual procedure, which required the plane to be below 30,000 feet (9,100 m), before attempting to restart a flamed out engine. The attempt failed.
The airspeed continued to decrease, while the autopilot rolled the control wheel to the maximum left limit of 23 degrees. As the speed decreased even further, the plane began to roll to the right, even though the autopilot was maintaining the maximum left roll limit. By the time the captain disconnected the autopilot, the plane had rolled over 60 degrees to the right and the nose had begun to drop. Aileron control was the only means available to the autopilot to keep the wings level as the autopilot does not connect to the rudder during normal cruise flight. To counteract the asymmetrical forces created by the loss of thrust from the No. 4 engine, it was essential for the pilot to manually push on the left rudder. However, the captain failed to use any rudder inputs at all, before or after disconnecting the autopilot. The resulting uncontrolled flight path is depicted in the diagram.
As the plane descended through clouds, the captain's attention was drawn to the artificial horizon which displayed excessive bank and pitch. Because such an attitude is highly irregular, the crew incorrectly assumed the indicators to be faulty. Without any visual references (due to the clouds) and having rejected the information from the ADIs, the crew became spatially disoriented. The plane entered a steep dive at a high bank angle. Altitude decreased 10,000 ft (3,000 m) within only 20 seconds, a vertical descent averaging 30,000 feet per minute (150 m/s). The crew and passengers experienced g-forces reaching as much as 5g.[1]
Only after breaking through the bottom of the clouds at 11,000 feet (3,400 m) did the captain orient himself and bring the plane under control, leveling out at 9,600 feet (2,900 m). They had descended 30,000 ft (9,100 m) in under two and a half minutes. The flight crew were under the impression that all four engines had flamed out, but the National Transportation Safety Board believes only engine No. 4 had failed. After leveling out, it was found that the three remaining engines were supplying normal thrust. A restart attempt brought No. 4 back into use. They began climbing and reported to air traffic control "condition normal now" and they were continuing on to Los Angeles. They then noticed that the inboard main landing gear was down[1] and one of the plane's hydraulic systems was empty. Because they did not have sufficient fuel to reach Los Angeles with the drag added by the landing gear, they diverted to San Francisco. Learning there were injured people on board, an emergency was declared and they flew straight in to the airport and landed without further incident.





The aircraft was significantly damaged by the aerodynamic forces. The wings were permanently bent upwards by 2 inches (50 mm), the inboard main landing gear lost two actuator doors, and the two inboard main gear struts were left dangling.[1] Most affected was the tail, where large outer parts of both horizontal stabilizers had been ripped off. The entire left outboard elevator had been lost along with its actuator, which had been powered by the hydraulic system that ruptured and drained.

quote Originally posted by nitroheadz28: Raydar- why do you say not at that altitude out of curiosity?

I'm not a pilot, but I've seen enough video to recognize that when a plane is on its side, it has essentially no lift. It's gonna slip sideways (down) by at least some measure.
When you're only a couple of wingspans above the ground, it would seem that the last place you would want to be would be on your side.
(Remember that video of the B52 crash that went around a few months ago? Exactly what I'm talking about.)

You don't have to believe me, but I've seen actual footage of a 747 doing the roll without any damage to plane. My X-Father In-law (RIP) worked for Pan Am, he had a copy of film taken by Test Co-Pilot of the whole maneuver. Both the Test Pilot and Co-Pilot were suspended for a little while for pulling this stunt. Boeing was very upset that this was attempted in their plane and was very strict about issuing memo that stated, this maneuver should never be attempted in the 747. Tex Johnson also got his butt reamed by Boeing for doing it in the earlier 707. It can be done with proper altitude , but is highly discouraged for even attempting it.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: I'm not a pilot, but I've seen enough video to recognize that when a plane is on its side, it has essentially no lift. It's gonna slip sideways (down) by at least some measure. When you're only a couple of wingspans above the ground, it would seem that the last place you would want to be would be on your side. (Remember that video of the B52 crash that went around a few months ago? Exactly what I'm talking about.)

quote Originally posted by California Kid: You don't have to believe me, but I've seen actual footage of a 747 doing the roll without any damage to plane. My X-Father In-law (RIP) worked for Pan Am, he had a copy of film taken by Test Co-Pilot of the whole maneuver. Both the Test Pilot and Co-Pilot were suspended for a little while for pulling this stunt. Boeing was very upset that this was attempted in their plane and was very strict about issuing memo that stated, this maneuver should never be attempted in the 747. Tex Johnson also got his butt reamed by Boeing for doing it in the earlier 707. It can be done with proper altitude , but is highly discouraged for even attempting it.

I believe you 100%. One of the Boeing reps I work with has tons of footage on our -200 model and I wouldn't have believed any of it if it weren't for the video. I think my favorite so far is watching a new pilot tail scrape across the runway only damaging a few panels.

quote Originally posted by pontiackid86: I agree, Its possible up in the air but there would have been a significant drop during a barrel roll with that size of plane. It would have hit the ground hard.

There was no barrel roll in this video, what were you watching?

quote Originally posted by Raydar: I'm not a pilot, but I've seen enough video to recognize that when a plane is on its side, it has essentially no lift. It's gonna slip sideways (down) by at least some measure. When you're only a couple of wingspans above the ground, it would seem that the last place you would want to be would be on your side. (Remember that video of the B52 crash that went around a few months ago? Exactly what I'm talking about.)

You'll have to forgive me, I'm not too keen on commercial/ large aircraft aerobatics. My limited experience is with small aerobatic planes and fighter jets at air shows as well as youtube. The biggest plane I've seen in person doing any sort of maneuvers was the Blue Angels Fat Albert and even then calling those any sort of aerobatics would be kind of a long shot.



A C-27J can be observed doing an aileron roll at 1:35 without any significant loss of altitude from the ground perspective.

I wasn't real for the simply reason that no company would risk a crew and a multi-million dollar jet for a stunt like that. It's a commercial jet...not a stunt plane.

It was still funny to watch.

A 747 can't do an aileron roll like that and not lose altitude.

FYI,

Bah--We don't need no stinkin ailerons.

naa if it could even turn that fast...once almost upside down it'd pretty much bam into the ground.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-22-2014).]

quote Originally posted by Raydar: I'm not a pilot, but I've seen enough video to recognize that when a plane is on its side, it has essentially no lift. It's gonna slip sideways (down) by at least some measure. When you're only a couple of wingspans above the ground, it would seem that the last place you would want to be would be on your side. (Remember that video of the B52 crash that went around a few months ago? Exactly what I'm talking about.)

Stunt planes can fly on their sides for quite a while, and use the rudder as an elevator with a lot of nose up pitch. Great shot about 1:07-130. Another great one about 8' off the ground at 3:00. About the only real aerobatics ive seen with a commercial plane was an AeroCommander Shrike with Bob Hoover flying it. He did it for years at air shows.

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 01-22-2014).]

quote Originally posted by nitroheadz28: Looks real to me, and I know its possible.

Not a chance!

quote Originally posted by Raydar: I'm not a pilot, but I've seen enough video to recognize that when a plane is on its side, it has essentially no lift. ... (Remember that video of the B52 crash that went around a few months ago? Exactly what I'm talking about.)

The real cause of the B-52 crash at Fairchild AFB was an out-of-control senior officer in the pilot's seat. The technical cause was an aerodynamic stall and loss of roll control, due to too steep a bank, at an altitude (~250 feet AGL) insufficient for recovery. Roll control in the B-52 is provided by differential spoilers on the upper wing surfaces, rather than the more common ailerons.^* Differential spoilers work by temporarily decreasing lift on one wing vs. the other, thus causing the airplane to roll in the direction of the deployed spoilers. The key point is that both wings have to be producing substantial lift for differential spoilers to be effective; if the wings aren't producing lift, spoilers provide no roll control whatsoever. In the case of the Fairchild B-52 crash, the pilot rolled the plane past 60 degrees^** of bank at low airspeed, pulled back on the controls to maintain altitude, and entered an accelerated stall^***. A stall, by definition, is a condition in which the wing is no longer producing lift. Stall => no lift => no roll control. The plane continued rolling to the left (probably due to rotational inertia) beyond 90 degrees before impact.


^* Spoilers offer some advantages (e.g. lack of adverse yaw) vs. ailerons on high-performance airplanes, but modern design practice is to incorporate both spoilers and small ailerons. Fatal accident rates tend to be significantly higher for airplanes using spoilers only.

^** The B-52 Flight Manual restricts bank angle to 30 degrees when maneuvering below 1000 feet altitude, and for steep turns above 1000 feet stipulates "Limit the target maximum bank angle to 45 degrees (not to exceed 50 degrees)."

^*** An accelerated stall is a stall that occurs at higher than normal stalling airspeed due to G-loads on the airplane, usually due to pilot control inputs while maneuvering. "During an accelerated stall the buffeting is more severe [than a normal 1G stall] and the time from stall warning is less." Stall speed goes up as the square root of the G-load, and an aircraft in a stable, coordinated turn at 60 degrees of bank will be pulling 2 Gs ... so the B-52 's airspeed at stall would have been about 40% higher than when flying straight and level. Even the most basic flight instruction teaches recognition and avoidance of, as well as recovery from, both normal and accelerated stalls.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-22-2014).]

quote Originally posted by nitroheadz28: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgKkvh1JRYQ Looks real to me, and I know its possible. But its too insane for me to believe. Those chicas though, I didn't see no damn plane in the video

This is a clever execution of bait & switch. The dancing girls get you excited, so you're less likely to think critically about the faked aileron roll part.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Not a chance!

Put me in the pilots see and I'll prove you wrong

quote Originally posted by nitroheadz28: Put me in the pilots see and I'll prove you wrong

Have you ever rolled a real airplane? Have you ever rolled a multi-engine airplane? I have, and I'm also confident that you are not Bob Hoover or Tex Johnson.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-22-2014).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Have you ever rolled a real airplane? Have you ever rolled a multi-engine airplane? I have, and I'm also confident that you are not Bob Hoover or Tex Johnson.

Way to miss the emoticon there.

And wow at "pilots see", my spelling/ grammar skills are turning into that of PK's

[This message has been edited by nitroheadz28 (edited 01-22-2014).]

quote Originally posted by nitroheadz28: ... my spelling/ grammar skills are turning into that of PK's

... in more ways than one ...

"I'm sure I could fly a plane no problem." ~ pontiackid86

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-22-2014).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: ... in more ways than one ... "I'm sure I could fly a plane no problem." ~ pontiackid86

I hope you're not comparing my joke to PK's presumptions that he can fly a plane because of how well he can operate a Bobcat. Cause that'd be, well almost as stupid as PK's claim itself lol.