Check this out.....

[Grand Torino]

While the video is a fake it's still pretty cool and worth a watch.... :rofl:

 

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

[dralarms]

What plane?

[buck1032]

I can only imagine the structural damage if it were able to do that. Granted it could probably perform that maneuver once, at an altitude of 20k ft or so.

[peejman]

I can only imagine the structural damage if it were able to do that. Granted it could probably perform that maneuver once, at an altitude of 20k ft or so.

No structural damage whatsoever. The airplane is quite capable. Simply landing puts more stress on the airframe than a barrel roll.

Here's its predecessor doing one in 1955.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk

[buck1032]

No structural damage whatsoever. The airplane is quite capable. Simply landing puts more stress on the airframe than a barrel roll.

Here's its predecessor doing one in 1955.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk

Yes and no. Inverted flight adds massive stress to areas that may not be designed to hold up to it.

[dralarms]

I guess I'm goning to have to watch it again to see if I can spot the plane. :D

[Ugly]

I don't think ther hydraulics can handl an inverted position.

Fantastic ad for the hot chicks though!

[Peace]

Most planes rated for commercial air or freight can easily sustain the force of an easy barrel roll.  unless you pull negative g's,... it's all experienced as "lift" to the airframe. 

 

however,... at that altitude, it would've been a quick mess.

[JPS]

Fake?  Sure, but it still gave me a chill...  I see plane crashes in my nightmares, and that kinda freaked me out.

[vontar]

No structural damage whatsoever. The airplane is quite capable. Simply landing puts more stress on the airframe than a barrel roll.

Here's its predecessor doing one in 1955.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk

I glad someone else knew about this.  My favorite line from Tex was, I was selling airplanes.  I was going to look for this if you had not posted it.   Glad you did because I thought it was the 747, but you found the right one and it might have took a while longer to fine.

[Clod Stomper]

No structural damage whatsoever. The airplane is quite capable. Simply landing puts more stress on the airframe than a barrel roll.

Here's its predecessor doing one in 1955.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk

 

I'm not an engineerer, let alone an aerospace engineerer, but that makes sense.  The structure has to be able to survive the forces of gravity upon landing as well as the forces of lift while flying.

[Ugly]

Concur thee airframe can take it, but the liquids need to be pressurized so they don't cavitate. That's the only problem besides spilled coffee and peanuts inside.

[peejman]

Concur thee airframe can take it, but the liquids need to be pressurized so they don't cavitate. That's the only problem besides spilled coffee and peanuts inside.

 

 

Here's your answer...

 

Most planes rated for commercial air or freight can easily sustain the force of an easy barrel roll.  unless you pull negative g's,... it's all experienced as "lift" to the airframe. 

 

however,... at that altitude, it would've been a quick mess.

 

 

There are no negative g's when doing the barrel roll.  Even though the airplane is upside down, the centrifugal force is such that it's always under positive g's (like a corkscrew on a roller coaster) ... Hence Tex's comment about a 1g barrel roll.  If the pilot is really good, it wouldn't even spill a cup of coffee. 

 

Airframes are typically rated for a certain level of positive and negative g's.  The negative g rating is loading is typically about half the positive.  Just flying through significant turbulence can momentarily generate +/- 3g's. 

 

And the hydraulic system is always pressurized. There's very little net flow so cavitation wouldn't be a problem even if it wasn't pressurized. 

Edited September 26, 2014 by peejman

[bersaguy]

If the inner structure for an airliner was going to suffer any damage or fall apart it would be when it hits the enormous air pockets they hit and the plane drops several 100 feet in a couple seconds and lands hard on the lower hard air platform and often people are injured when they hit the ceiling of the aircraft along with other objects............jmho

[Mike.357]

nothing in that video not to like.

[jtmaze]

There are truths to both sides of this story. Most aerobatics when done correctly never stress the air frame anywhere near its limits. As the son of a pilot, I have been in more airplanes small and large and at age 17 went to the Oshkosh Fly In. Personally watched Bob Hoover take a Strike Commander(his personal plane) to 15000 feet and shut the engine off, fly aerobatics all the way down, land, taxi to the grandstand get out and say "how are y'all doing today." This is one of the most amazing things I have ever seen. I have also seen an old friend of dad's, taxi back into the ramp with one arm holding the windscreen in where he tried to roll his Champ. I know Sidewinder knows who that was May have even been there. It more depends on the skill of the pilot than the strength of the aircraft.


JTM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vontar]

OK great science discussions however Ithink we are off topic. 

Refresher

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-mWq5B6sU0

Edited September 27, 2014 by vontar

[Ugly]

Here's your answer...

I didn't know that, thanks! That's awesome!



There are no negative g's when doing the barrel roll. Even though the airplane is upside down, the centrifugal force is such that it's always under positive g's (like a corkscrew on a roller coaster) ... Hence Tex's comment about a 1g barrel roll. If the pilot is really good, it wouldn't even spill a cup of coffee.

Airframes are typically rated for a certain level of positive and negative g's. The negative g rating is loading is typically about half the positive. Just flying through significant turbulence can momentarily generate +/- 3g's.

And the hydraulic system is always pressurized. There's very little net flow so cavitation wouldn't be a problem even if it wasn't pressurized.

Post is in second sentence, thanks for the education! Edited September 27, 2014 by Ugly

[Dustbuster]

That's cool but a barrel roll at 400 mph is stil um a barrel roll at 400 mph

[K191145]

No structural damage whatsoever. The airplane is quite capable. Simply landing puts more stress on the airframe than a barrel roll.

Here's its predecessor doing one in 1955.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk

 

Here's a "proper" barrell roll.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGprpxA0Q8M

 

I am not a pilot but have been around quite a few, they will tell you that a "PROPER" barrell roll adds no extra stress on an airplane. The trick would be to do a "proper" barrell roll in a 747.