Well, kind of. If you've seen Top Gun you get the point.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 26, 2008 07:29 AM | Email ThisAs usual, journalists don't feel like taking the time to get to the point of the story: If the flight had a clearance for a low pass, or "the option", then there was no problem. If not, it's a violation. Real simple, except to someone with a journalism "degree".
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on February 26, 2008 07:43 AMIt kind of bugs me that journalists are so lame, that they can't even get to the gist of a simple story like this - no, not whether the tower controller spilled his coffee ;-}, but whether he had a clearance for the low pass.
Also, if he was doing 300 mph, there's another violation, but what they hey, the guys are probably tired of flying straight and level for 8 hours at a time. They'll find other work.
Duffman, sorry to sound like a smart-ass. I would enjoy watching that big beast come by like that too. Impressive to watch, almost as much as that "Dreamlifter" that was coming in and out of Boeing field for a while (it, and a couple of others, look like 747's with thyroid problems and are used to carry large parts of the 787 across the ocean).
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on February 26, 2008 08:18 AMAs a pilot myself this fool made a huge error.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 26, 2008 08:41 AMFrom what I've heard and learned (Cathay) is know for flybys.
But you need to let the tower nad your passengers know first. Plus 20/30ft off the deck with something that big could have been really bad if anything had gone wrong.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 26, 2008 08:45 AMAs someone who grew up in CA and watched my grandparents and my mother lose their homes because the dem party went on a tax& spend spree I have no love for the dem party!
Thank God for Prop 13 but it was too late to help my family.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 26, 2008 09:01 AMThe stunt probably shortened the lives of Boeing executives, but it likely sold a lot of airplanes. Unlike the 777 pilot Johnston kept his job.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 26, 2008 10:02 AMGranted the speed a pressure wave the 777 wings puts outs may have kept the 777 from hitting the ground, but it was a dumb move.
Fun to see that's for sure.
I love to do tricks in planes and that part of me loved it.
Which is better, a tax and spend spree or a cut and spend spree? The economy didn't grow that much under President Bush's tax cuts, and someone is going to have to pay for all that spending.
Hmmm, wonder who thats going to be? ;)
Oh yeah, thanks for the link Village.
Years ago I went to an airshow featuring the Brazilian equivilant of the Blue Angels, (I think it was Brazil, or perhaps they were from Argentina, or Chile, or some other South American country). These guys ignored every air show regulation imaginable, flying low directly over the crowd while they performed their stunts, instead of over the empty runway where they were supposed to be. I've never seen anything like it since. They were not invited back the following year.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 26, 2008 11:19 AMYou can be my wingman anytime!!!
Posted by: Don Ward on February 26, 2008 11:42 AMSorry for your experience, Kat, but I disagree. While I don't condone what the pilot did here, there is nothing more exhilarating than getting buzzed by a fighter jet.
... unless it was having one of the new, B1-Bs buzz us. (back in the day ('87))
There's a time and a place for everything.
Posted by: jimg on February 26, 2008 11:51 AMTex Johnston did not do a barrel roll in the 707. He did what is called a chandelle. A barrel roll is hard to describe, but the flight path is similar to a corkscrew. What Tex did is much closer to an aileron roll, which is a 360deg roll around the aircraft's longitudinal axis. A barrel roll would have caused the engines to separate from the wings due to the gyroscopic force of the spinning turbine blades in the engines. Listen to what Tex had to say, he said he did a roll, not a barrel roll, and then goes on to describe it as a chandelle. There's a huge difference between an aileron roll and a barrel roll.
What's also not usually discussed when talking about the 707 roll is what was happening in aviation at the time. The British built a commercial jet aircraft, the de Havilland Comet (how appropriate) which had a history of several crashes. People were saying that jet aircraft travel was unsafe, and the future of Boeing was at stake. Tex wanted to demonstrate that the 707 was safe. What he did was no more stressful on the plane that straight and level flight, but sure looked good.
katomar, I can understand why you didn't think it was funny when you were buzzed by the jets, but I guarantee the pilots thought it was funny. Jet pilots have a weird sense of humor. I experienced the same thing when I was about 10, and the experience made me want to become a fighter pilot, which I did (OK, technically I flew attack jets, but close enough).
The pilot of the 777 must have had permission from the tower to conduct the flyby. Apparently what he did wrong was not getting company permission for the flyby. In my opinion he exhibited very poor judgment by flying so low. One can tell from the angle of attack and wing loading that he was flying a heavy jet at a rather slow speed.
When we did a flyby we were limited to an altitude of no lower than 200 feet, and that was in nimble Navy jets. Taking a plane that size that low is just plain dumb, in my opinion. Had I been in the cockpit it would have scared me, and I'm fearless.
"As someone who grew up in CA and watched my grandparents and my mother lose their homes because the dem party went on a tax& spend spree I have no love for the dem party!"
--
What? It's the Democratic Party's fault, and not the result of poor personal choices they made?
This could never have happened if they were rock-ribbed, jut-jawed, steely-eyed conservatives, who always make clear, calculating decisions -- free of emotion -- and never blame others for their misfortunes.
Only weak, stinking liberals cry victim and expect others to bail them out for their mistakes, isn't that right? Conservatives always accept personal responsibility because that is their nature, isn't that right? They just should have gone without that TV or that car or that something else, isn't that right?
Well, it must be right. I read all that right here on Sound Politics.
Thanks for the clarification, Obi-Wan. I do recall that roll of the Dash-80 being described properly as an "aileron roll".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 26, 2008 01:49 PMThanks for the better info on the so called roll. I didn't want to get teckie about it, but you did a great job.
Yes I've been buzzed by jets and even a OV-1 Mohawk. He way way deep into grass when he did it.. 0-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 26, 2008 01:50 PMGo away fool, you KNOW not what you speak of.
But thanks for your dumb comment anyway.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 26, 2008 01:53 PMThe most impressive thing I ever saw was R.A. "Bob" Hoover, well into his 70's, dead-stick land his big twin-engine Shrike. I have no idea how high up he was when he shut off the engines. All you could hear for the longest time was the wind whistling through the wings and the wires. Hoover landed the thing exactly on a pre-determined spot.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 26, 2008 02:04 PMNice dodge. Ivan hit a nerve or something?
Do you have any idea why prop 13 was passed?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 26, 2008 02:09 PMCalifornia in the mid-1970's, hmmm, wasn't that the Reagan era of California politics? Reagan left in 1976, Prop 13 was passed in 1978.
So in effect the great savior of the GOP was directly responsible for increasing property taxes to a point where Prop 13 passed. I mean how much damage could Jerry Brown do in two years?
Talk about blaming others. Your parents could have taken personal responsibility and moved out of a high property tax state.
Tex Johnston did not do a barrel roll in the 707. He did what is called a chandelle.
I won't doubt your credentials as a carrier pilot but what Tex Johnston did wasn't a chandelle. A chandelle is a turning climb to reverse direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandelle
It's kind of a non-aerobatic substitute for an Immelman turn. What Tex did was definitely a barrel roll. Ive seen the video. Tex did call it a chandelle but it wasn't.
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/707_roll_video.htm
It definitely wasn't an aileron roll which would put the plane in -1G while inverted. A barrel roll should stay positive G if done properly.
Posted by: RBW on February 26, 2008 03:44 PM1. The definition of a chandelle could have changed from the time that Johnston made his famous roll. I read one article in which a pilot performed a chandelle in the traffic pattern to avoid another plane. I doubt that pilot reversed course 180deg in the traffic pattern. So I don't necessarily take the Wiki article as the definitive word on the definition of a chandelle in the 1950s.
2. A barrel roll, properly executed, involves pulling the nose of the aircraft up into a climbing turn. If done properly, half way through the maneuver the nose of the aircraft will be pointed exactly 90deg from the initial direction of flight, and the aircraft will be inverted. The aircraft will finish the barrel roll at the same altitude, airspeed, and direction of flight as when it started the barrel roll. Johnston definitively did not do that. You are correct, however, that the aircraft is always at positive G loading during a barrel roll.
3. You make a good point about the aircraft not being at +1G when inverted during an aileron roll. However, during an aileron roll, when inverted, the aircraft is usually at 0G, not negative 1G. Negative 1G is necessary to maintain level flight when inverted, and is very uncomfortable for the pilot. When performing an aileron roll the pilot pulls up slightly, and executes the roll. Pulling the nose up slightly before the roll will compensate for the aircraft losing altitude when inverted.
4. Johnston would have wanted to maintain positive G during the maneuver, if for no other reason to keep the fuel properly located in the tanks so the fuel pumps wouldn't cavitate.
So, what I think that Johnston did was a modified barrel roll/aileron roll. He didn't call it a barrel roll, because it's not. And he didn't call it an aileron roll, because it's not. It was a combination of the two, one where he was able to keep the aircraft under positive G at all time, but also deviated from his initial direction of flight as little as possible.
We used to do a maneuver like that called a canopy roll. It was rather risky, and rarely performed as there was too much of a chance of collision. The situation was this: A flight of two aircraft are in formation. Normally when the wingman crossed from one side of the lead to the other he would drop slightly back, and cross under the lead aircraft to the other side. A more fancy method would be for the wingman to pull up, and roll inverted passing over the lead aircraft, rolling upright on the other side.
So, in final analysis, since the change of direction of flight during a barrel roll is 90deg, and during an aileron roll 0deg, what Johnston did is much closer to an aileron roll than barrel roll.
my caption? "Seattle Tries Mobile Free Drunk Housing Units in Snohomish County"
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on February 26, 2008 06:53 PMYou might be right about the combination roll but a chandelle is an old maneuver and hasn't changed meaning in the last 50 years. It's probably something you'd have no use for in a jet fighter. You'd use an Immelman. I'm wondering if we don't have an incomplete video of Tex here describing what he did. If he'd done a lower pass over the lake first, a chandelle would be a good maneuver to gain altitude and reverse direction for the following roll. Guess we'll never know since Tex is dead now.
Outside the chandelle issue though you're post was right on target.
Posted by: RBW on February 27, 2008 08:05 AMAttempting to set a qualifying speed record, driver Lou Fageol was rocketing along Lake Washington at 160 mph in the Gold Cup defending champion hydroplane Slo-Mo-Shun V. Suddenly the big raceboat lifted off the surface of the lake and executed a 360-degree flip, landing right side up without Fageol. Miraculously Fageol survived, but he never raced again.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 27, 2008 10:09 AM