“You know that. Now we know that. But just don’t do it anymore.”
Edit: forgot the barrel roll was on a 707 - not a 747
many years later, Boeing Chief Test Pilot John Cashman stated that just before he piloted the maiden flight of the Boeing 777 on Jun. 12, 1994, his last instructions from then Boeing President Phil Condit were “No rolls”. -- anecdote from https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-tex-johnston-barre...
I wonder why "the suits" at Boeing are so against the barrel rolls? The pilots all agree it's not that big a deal, not dangerous, and anybody watching is going to love it.
this article https://www.straightdope.com/21341407/is-it-possible-to-loop... says that the bigger the plane, the more dangerous because it will roll more slowly, and during parts of the roll particularly 90 degrees off "flat" there is no lift and you're going to be falling.
I'm reminded of the tragic crash of a B-52 illustrating a similar circumstance, and this was the pilot's last flight before retiring https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6io8Tjv7xk
It’s not a big deal in a clean F-15C to start a barrel roll, change minds, and add a full right deflection for 1s to recover to a level flight. But in a larger and non-manauver-oriented planes like a 747, you might find out that the aircraft under present circumstances cannot command more pitch or roll rates to transition from a high-speed inverted descent to a desired positive climb situation before the altimeter indication would reach zero or below. The latter was not so fun.
Overall, I think it’s reasonable that “the suits” were not embracing it. The test pilots made their point, the world witnessed it, any further attempts weren’t strictly necessary, and frankly would have been scary.
The Fairchild B-52 crash isn't really comparable to the 707 roll. That was at a much lower altitude and a far more aggressive maneuver.
Found it - "Aerobatic Capabilities of “Marginally Aerobatic” Airplanes" - scroll down to "The Physics of Aerobatics" and click "Paper", toward the end there is a detailed summary of how a transport jet could just barely do a very ugly loop. https://www.understandingairplanes.com/online.html
Gotta love the understatement there.
Back then "flight acrobatics" beside showing off the skills of a pilot was the art of "selling" planes/flying and making it popular after all the "Jennies" were sold off (and the pilots laid off) by the government after WWI[0] for essentially pennies: about $200 (~$4.000); production cost initially at $5.000 (~$100.000). Civil aviation "mass-adopted".
So, by selling a 707 with a barrel roll is as old school as it gets.
[0]https://web.archive.org/web/20150324051634/http://www.southe...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_F._Udvar-Hazy_Center
I need that sign. ha
There were some unusually significant structural differences between the prototype dash 80 and production 707's, for example:
> The 132 in (3,400 mm) wide fuselage of the Dash 80 was large enough for four-abreast (two-plus-two) seating like the Stratocruiser. Answering customers' demands and under Douglas competition, Boeing soon realized this would not provide a viable payload, so it widened the fuselage to 144 in (3,660 mm) to allow five-abreast seating and use of the KC-135's tooling.
The 747s first airframe is at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, and you can _go inside it_. https://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/boeing-747-121
Seriously, what were they planning to transport? Pixies?