Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So, the whole use of terminology can be wrong. "Low speed" is a relative term, like "High speed" but is not in itself dangerous because all these relative speeds may or may not be appropriate to the flight condition. The Airbus has a very comprehensive flight control system and as the caption says, it has a max angle of bank of 67 degrees. That is quite a high limit for a large airliner, and equates to +2.6G in a level turn. Of course, if that Airbus had been flying level at an airspeed for 1.3G above stall speed, racking-on 67degrees AoB and pulling to stay level would stall the aircraft. However, the Airbus flight control system would actually not allow that and it would limit the AoB. Overall, flying is a complicated thing and the modern world of Dumbed-down and sensationalised media comment for the great unwashed should never be simply swallowed!I guess this is how a low speed high angle bank is supposed to be done, but if I'd been watching it live I would have expected a nose dive crash.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ae6y-KuvSlY&pp=ygUdQWlycGxhbmUgQmFua2luZyBhbmQgY3Jhc2hpbmc%3D
That C-17 crash was in Alaska back in 2010.
They were practicing the demonstration routine for an Airshow and during a turn, the aircraft warned the pilot of an impending stall and instead of taking measures to correct the ship out of the condition, he continued in the turn which induced a full (and fatal) stall.
I read an article on air crashes where pilots became disorientated flying in cloud. They started to distrust instruments and trust their senses, resulting in progressing downwards in a 1G spiral. I cant imagine there is a manual or instructions for such manoeuvers so its a fly by the seat of your pants with no regard to airspeed and bank angle which feels OK until suddenly it doesnt. Inviting people to put on an "impressive display" doesnt help at all.
An unfortunately too common an occurrence, not always with the successful outcome you had.Interesting first hand experience here, and that almost made me shit myself. lol
So, when I was learning to fly, and I was doing my 1st cross country solo flight. I was flying a triangle circuit to three different airports. While approaching my 2nd airport where I was supposed to do 5 touch and goes, the tower asked me to fly a right traffic pattern because of inbound traffic instead of a left pattern which is what I had been practicing more. I confirmed and entered a right downwind per the towers instructions. I reduced my speed as I always did and turned to base. At that point I reduced power like always and began my descent. I misjudged my turn my turn to final and overshot my turn point. Inexperienced as I was I banked hard right to final and bled off so much airspeed that the stall warnings went off. When I looked down at my instruments I was at stall speed. I was able to correct and barely got it on the runway.
Had I not increased my airspeed when I did, I would have stalled and likely entered a spin at that bank. At that altitude there was no recovery possible.
An unfortunately too common an occurrence, not always with the successful outcome you had.
I had one when learning to fly the Tiger.
Orbiting overhead to get a look at the wind socks, which were showing conflicting wind directions, and I inadvertently increased my bank angle to keep the field in sight as I was blown down-wind. My instructor in the back told me to look up, and I was at about 60º AOB and a big slip - pretty much what those crashes were in. Luckily I was high enough, and in a small enough aircraft to recover.
When you're looking out the side window to look at something on the ground (wind sock, display line, etc) maintaining an angle becomes a whole lot harder as it messes up your usual scan pattern.
Definitely a learning experience.
Me too, especially as I have put students into similar situations when I was instructing.Absolutely. I can tell you it was a very humbling learning experience for me.
I guess this is how a low speed high angle bank is supposed to be done, but if I'd been watching it live I would have expected a nose dive crash.
Apart from the "simple" loading limits (that are not actually that simple), aircraft that are not designed for unusual attitudes and manoeuvre often have problems with expanding the flight envelope simply because their systems may not function beyond their normal attitude limits. This can be especially true of airliners. Combat and aerobatic aircraft usually have systems that function properly within the attitude and G limits in the aircraft documentation. This often includes a time limit in less than Zero G. Often, this depends on the ability of Fuel, Oil and Hydraulic systems to recover without failures. However, non combat and non aerobatic aircraft will likely have systems with limited guaranteed function in pitch above about 30 degrees and in zero or negative G. This is simply because it is more expensive to build an aircraft that has aerobatic systems.Let's not forget that 'Tex' Johnson deliberately rolled the prototype Boeing 707 as part of a demonstration flight.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE
And some pretty spectacular display flying by the A400M
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL_ZU6LZnAc
All carried out well with the aircrafts' limits
From what I understand all at Boeing and elsewhere understood that there was no risk at all, except that isnt what nervous potential passengers want to see, because they visualise the pilot doing that when they are inside on a routine flight.Tex Johnson's Barrel Roll was a normal positive 1G roll. There was no strain on the airplane at all, it was exactly the same as if he'd been flying straight and normal.
In fact, talking to him many years later he told me they did two of them out over the Olympic Mountains out of sight just to prove it (A), could be done and (B), done safely. The data recorders never showed a thing. IIRC he said the one over Lake Washington and the crowd was the third one. I can testify to that. When I was about 4 or 5 I was flying with my dad in a Grumman Widgeon which is a non-aerobatic airplane. He had won an Aerobatic Championship in Texas in the late 1930s and knew how to do all kinds of aerobatics. He told me to stand up (I was up front in the right seat) and hang onto the inst. panel, so I did and he did a Barrel Roll then asked if I liked it. My feet never left the floor and I said I did, so we did another one, then he told me to sit back down. Tex was a raceplane and aerobatic pilot as well as a highly experienced test pilot, he knew what he was doing and it wasn't putting Boeing's baby and future in danger.
Way cool!Tex Johnson's Barrel Roll was a normal positive 1G roll. There was no strain on the airplane at all, it was exactly the same as if he'd been flying straight and normal.
In fact, talking to him many years later he told me they did two of them out over the Olympic Mountains out of sight just to prove it (A), could be done and (B), done safely. The data recorders never showed a thing. IIRC he said the one over Lake Washington and the crowd was the third one. I can testify to that. When I was about 4 or 5 I was flying with my dad in a Grumman Widgeon which is a non-aerobatic airplane. He had won an Aerobatic Championship in Texas in the late 1930s and knew how to do all kinds of aerobatics. He told me to stand up (I was up front in the right seat) and hang onto the inst. panel, so I did and he did a Barrel Roll then asked if I liked it. My feet never left the floor and I said I did, so we did another one, then he told me to sit back down. Tex was a raceplane and aerobatic pilot as well as a highly experienced test pilot, he knew what he was doing and it wasn't putting Boeing's baby and future in danger.
My heart was in my mouth when I watched this a/c being thrown about the sky in 2010 at the Abbotsford air show.
View attachment 752022View attachment 752023
Numan, nothing as fine your images.
Jim
Beautiful shots of the third best bomber of WW II.