all 181 comments

[–]MasterFubar 1124 points1125 points  (24 children)

Allen asked, “What did you think you were doing yesterday?” Johnston replied, “Selling the airplane.” ... “The airplane does not recognize attitude, providing a maneuver is conducted at one G. It knows only positive and negative imposed loads and variations in thrust and drag. The barrel roll is a one G maneuver and quite impressive, but the airplane never knows it’s inverted.”

Allen mulled that over and responded, “You know that. Now we know that. But just don’t do it anymore.”


[–]vito1221 342 points343 points  (5 children)

"But just don't do it anymore." LOL.

He had a set of solid brass clangers, that's for sure.

[–]LiddleBob 6 points7 points  (0 children)

He couldn’t get those balls through the TSA now a days, no sir!

[–]UCXC_2015 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Some cast iron hangers for sure.

[–]thrawn82 9 points10 points  (0 children)


[–]Colourblindknight 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Try had to modify the captains chair with a bowling ball bag to hold his steel cojones.

[–]darkdoorway 31 points32 points  (16 children)

So....how many where sold after that? Anyone?

[–]Sevcode 125 points126 points  (3 children)


Although it was not the first jetliner in service, the 707 was the first to be commercially successful. Dominating passenger air transport in the 1960s and remaining common through the 1970s, the 707 is generally credited with ushering in the Jet Age

This stunt apparently happened in 1955, so I'd say "a lot"

[–]yellow_mio 8 points9 points  (2 children)


[–]fizzlefist 11 points12 points  (1 child)

For comparison, the Boeing 737 is the most produced civilian jet airliner ever at around 9,800 units, and the Cessna 172 is the most produced aircraft ever at over 44,000 units.


[–]Sevcode 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The 737 is a fair comparison, but I don't think we should be comparing jet liners to 4 seater planes in terms of production volumes. Cost wise the Cesna off a quick google goes for 350k while the lowest price listed for the 737 was 87 million. That makes the Cesna number an absolute pittance compared to the 737.

[–]D74248 17 points18 points  (1 child)

865 Boeing 707s. 154 Boeing 720s. 803 KC-135s. ???? a bunch of military derivatives in addition to the KC-135.

The 707 parts bin was heavily used in the 727 and 737. There is a bit of 707 even in the new 737s being built today.

[–]Eternal_Pickles 5 points6 points  (0 children)

All of them share a nearly identical front fuselage section. Same with the DC-8/DC-9/MD-80/MD-90.

[–]emjaysea 19 points20 points  (5 children)

Why would you emphasize the word how there?

[–]fezzikola 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Which one would you have emphasized?

[–]emjaysea 6 points7 points  (2 children)

It seems like any word would do.

[–]fezzikola 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I could still manage to fuck it up.

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really doubt you could guck up emphasizing as.badly as me

[–]elliptic_hyperboloid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The above article says Boeing sold just over a thousand over the course of the production.

[–]Hanschri 1 point2 points  (0 children)

1010 were delivered according to Wikipedia.

[–]nerys71 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yeah. its 1g if you do it right. hell of a pilot !

[–]nousernameusername 381 points382 points  (8 children)

You put a guy named 'Tex' in a plane, you gotta expect some shit.

[–]carolathome 40 points41 points  (7 children)

Big question - so, how many did they sell that day?

[–]drdanieldoom 36 points37 points  (4 children)

All of them.

[–]a_sharp_soprano_sax 6 points7 points  (3 children)

And that plane's name?

[–]MayBeeMaybeKnot 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Albert Wright Brothers.

[–]And_The_Full_Effect 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No one knows. The plane has been dead for fourty years...

[–]KypDurron 13 points14 points  (1 child)

The gathered businessmen and reporters weren't actually there to buy planes. He was instructed to "sell" the concept of the airplane.

When someone tells you to "really sell yourself" in a job interview, they're not telling you to enter a slavery contract with your prospective employer.

[–]pongjinn 483 points484 points  (13 children)

"I'll try spinning, that's a good trick"

[–]Notbob1234 104 points105 points  (4 children)

This is where the fun begins

[–]iamclev 47 points48 points  (3 children)

Now this is podracing!

[–]jorgendude 17 points18 points  (2 children)

It’s working!!!! It’s working!

[–]Percehh 4 points5 points  (1 child)


[–]dirtbiker206 125 points126 points  (15 children)

I grew up hearing about this all the time. Considering the barrel roll happened nearly directly over my house, and most of my family worked for Boeing. I love it when it comes up on the internet!

[–]FigMcLargeHuge 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Considering the barrel roll happened nearly directly over my house

Over Macho Grande?

[–]TakeMeToChurchill 9 points10 points  (0 children)

No, I don’t think I’ll ever get over Macho Grande.

[–]dirtbiker206 0 points1 point  (1 child)

What? This was over lake Washington, in Seattle. But the approach for this was from Renton heading due north west. My old house was by the Renton Boeing Field. Also my parents didn't own that house when this happened either. It's just a story I grew up hearing about and that happened over my house.

[–]TakeMeToChurchill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He was making a reference to Airplane! 2.

[–]PolybiusNightmare 217 points218 points  (12 children)

They claim that it was without the president’s knowledge but he signed off on the plan to put a ‘z’ and an ‘r’ button in the cockpit. He had to know that someone was going to press one of them twice.

[–]hayadoin 40 points41 points  (11 children)

i don't get it, what's the 'z' and 'r' mean?

[–]TheHolyHandGrenade_ 184 points185 points  (2 children)

"Z" and "R" refer to buttons on an N64 controller. In the game starfox (where the "do a barrel roll" meme comes from), pressing one of these twice causes your ship to roll in the air (which, if we're being pedantic, is an aileron roll, not a barrel roll, but that's not the point).

[–]LeadfootYT 18 points19 points  (1 child)

an aileron roll, not a barrel roll

Worth mentioning here because a barrel roll is a 1G maneuver and an aileron roll is not (IIRC).

[–]dunnoMyPW 12 points13 points  (0 children)

"Do a barrel roll!" from Starfox 64. Those are the buttons you push to do it.

[–]PDW812 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Star fox 64 reference, but it would be more apt to say L and R, as it was on the super nintendo, a slight bit closer to this. Edit: should have been more clear, the original star fox was on the super nintendo, which used L and R to execute a barrel roll (aileron roll)

[–]RoboWonder 22 points23 points  (1 child)

Star Fox 64, as the name implies, was on the Nintendo 64.

[–]lunatickinkifa 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well, the N64 was pretty super

[–]abcq02 8 points9 points  (0 children)


super nintendo

[–]whiskeytaang0 57 points58 points  (16 children)

[–]SullyDuggs 35 points36 points  (14 children)

Skip to the good stuff. Really poor quality though. Such a shame.

[–]Nickbou 22 points23 points  (11 children)

I wonder if in 50 years people will look back at 1080p or 4k video and lament the poor quality.

[–]corey_uh_lahey 21 points22 points  (2 children)

"It's not even 3D! I can't look around!"

[–]Stokkeren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Meh that technology is already here

[–]Car-face 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"My neural implant must be malfunctioning again..."

[–]Nukkil 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Diminishing returns

[–]superscout 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Quite possibly. Old analog film can always be re-scanned at higher and higher resolutions, but digital 1080p is stuck like that forver, and just gonna keep looking worse

[–]emjaysea 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Film can be scanned at extremely high resolutions, but film images are created with silver halide grains, or dye clouds in the case of color film. Beyond a certain point you're not getting any new information from the image. Increased resolution can help when printing big images, but they still need to be viewed at an appropriate distance or all you see is the grains again. It's like standing close to a Monet, it's just a bunch of points (dabs of paint). Interestingly, film scanners aren't as good as they were 10 years ago, or not since nikon quit making theirs. Sure, there are drum scanners that beat nikon, but they are hard to work with, often requiring one to wet mount the film with oil. Even a cheap drum scanner will set you back $10k. They aren't as good these days because the pros moved to digital cameras once they were better than film. The demand just isn't there. Having said that, a used nikon 9000 ED will set you back thousands of dollars. More than it cost new.

[–]heydominik 2 points3 points  (1 child)

that's why the star wars prequels are gonna suck even more in the future

[–]fizban75 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't worry, George Lucas's replicant will remaster them and throw in some extra Jar Jar Binks for fun.

[–]gcm6664 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If that is video it wouldn't be 1080p, it would closer to 486 lines at best. But I suspect it is 8mm by the looks of it. You can scan it as high a resolution as you want but it would only get marginally better.

[–]Bank_Holidays 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It's near the limit of what we can see, assuming you don't have a massive Tv or are sitting 6cm from the screen.

[–]Speed_Kiwi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You mean like VR?

[–]whiskeytaang0 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Honestly not sure I've ever watched a good version of it given the age.

[–]SullyDuggs 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's another version posted in these comments that looks better.

edit: Not much better though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk&feature=youtu.be&t=1m46s

[–]Dude_with_the_pants 5 points6 points  (0 children)

VHS quality, even worse. At least you can eat a potato.

[–]Baron164 13 points14 points  (6 children)

I didn't realize Boeing manufactured that airframe for almost 40 years. And I thought Ford had a good run with the 289 Engine.

[–]MY_FUCKING_USERNAME 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Ford still manufactures Windsor platform engines and parts to this day...so still going strong at 57 years.

[–]Baron164 2 points3 points  (4 children)

True, but the original 289 block hasn't been used (to my knowledge) in anything new since the mid 90's. Not since it was replaced with the Aluminum 4.6L.

[–]youwantitwhen 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For those not in the know, the 302 which is Ford's venerable 5.0L is a stroked 289. The block goes as far back as the early 60s since the 289 was initially a bored out 260. Casting wise, I think the 289 blocks were first cast in late 1964. The 302 was put out around 1968.

[–]MY_FUCKING_USERNAME 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Right...not in production cars of course but they still manufacture Windsor crate engines and parts, mostly geared towards racing applications.

Basically a 289 with 57 years of improvements...many parts are still interchangeable.

[–]Baron164 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I was just referencing production vehicle usage. That motor is great though, damn thing is one of the few motors I would say is bullet proof. Thing would easily outlive the vehicles it was put into.

[–]Bigelow92 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They’re still purchasable brand new as crate motors

[–]raven1121 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The Museum of Flight in Seattle has Alvin "Tex" Johnson's flight helmet , cowboy boots, and the yoke of the Dash 80 on display

i'd like to think if you have your chief test pilot with the nickname of "Tex" walking out to a brand new airliner in a flight helmet and cowboy boots and the last words you said to him was "sell the airplane" you have to expect some crazy stunt to go down

[–]Pablob19 7 points8 points  (2 children)

You were in a 4g inverted dive with a mig28?

[–]All_hail_disney 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Where is this from????

[–]Pablob19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Top Gun. I’m upset no one caught it

[–]SgtDolphin 33 points34 points  (8 children)


I was expecting a barrel roll from a Boeing 707. Was left disappointed.

[–]Alexsutton 55 points56 points  (7 children)

You saw a barrel roll, that image you linked is a bit deceptive in that the barrel is huge, it looks closer to a vertical loop. An aileron roll means the aircraft keeps travelling in an dead straight line, the plane rolls along an axis that goes straight through the middle of the body of the plane.

Because there's no forces acting on the plane other than the rotation, this wouldn't be a 1G manoeuvre, you would start at 1G, go all the way to -1G at the inverted position, then back to 1G at the top.

A barrel roll is more like if you had a model plane attached to a piece of string at the top of the body of the plane, then you started spinning it around. The forces would always be pushing down towards the bottom of the plane.

[–]Stud_Master_Deluxe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Cool explanation. Thank you.

[–]SgtDolphin 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I get it now. Thanks for the explanation.

[–]aero_enginerd -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That image is pretty accurate though. In a barrel roll you get around 45 degrees off entry heading and perform essentially a "loop" while traveling in a forward direction. During an aileron roll the plane is kept at 1 G since the wings that generate the lift are inverted during the maneuver. To counter the loss of vertical lift during the maneuver, pilots pitch the nose up, usually 10 to 20 degrees. The 707 did more of an aileron roll. It may come across as a barrel roll since the roll rate is so slow.

[–]Notbob1234 18 points19 points  (3 children)

"Do a barrel roll!"

[–]snukebox_hero 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Slippy all up in reddit comments

[–]PinkSockLoliPop 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But, Peppy said that, not Slippy. Slippy was too busy getting bitch-slapped by robotic torsos and getting half-eaten by some kind of sand-monsters.

[–]gimmieasammich 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Came here to see this comment

[–]HaroldJRoth 11 points12 points  (2 children)

Sad to see a great company resort to banning the CSeries jets instead of making a modern plane themselves.

[–]wrongwayup 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Now they just sell airplanes by having the government limit imports of competitors.

[–]D74248 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It is really not the same company. Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas in 1997, and then the McDonnell Douglas senior management pretty much took over.

[–]eazyvictor[S] 16 points17 points  (1 child)

Whoops, meant "company's" my bad!

[–]Sgtoconner 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Shame on you/s

[–]bolanrox 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It worked

[–]Stony_Bennett 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yea, but can he land it that way like Denzel?

[–]ash_274 1 point2 points  (0 children)

IIRC, from that point on, any public demos for new Boeing aircraft include in the instructions “no rolls” as an inside joke

[–]SentireAeris 5 points6 points  (9 children)

I don't understand why a barrel-roll is often said to be "1G"... I think it's misleading, it is an "all positive, low g" manoeuvure (vs. an aileron roll where you cycle through 1 to -1 and back). Saying it's a "1g" manoeuvre makes people think that you should (or even physically can), hold exactly 1g throughout, which technically isn't possible.

[–]wingmate747 17 points18 points  (7 children)

It's definitely possible.


[–]Kevlaars 18 points19 points  (2 children)

I don't even have to click to know that link will be Bob Hoover pouring iced tea.

[–]shadybluesdealer 13 points14 points  (1 child)

This just shows that it it is a positive-G maneuver. It probably is right around 1 G while inverted in this video, but the only way to arrest that acceleration downward as you roll upright is through acceleration away from the ground, which will add to the force of gravity. The actual G in this video is probably 1.5, then 1, then 2 at the end, then back to 1 on stable, level flight. I'm not trying to argue your point, just clarifying why "1-G maneuver" is a little misleading.

[–]dragondadd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are exactly right.

[–]dragondadd 3 points4 points  (1 child)

That just shows it's both positive g and in coordinated flight without any side loading.

If you are flying straight and level, and pitch the nose up (as begins every barrel roll), you have just pulled more than 1 g.

[–]wingmate747 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah you're exactly right. When you say it like that I see what everyone is getting at.

[–]Chimp_empire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I too love splitting hairs

[–]snarksneeze 7 points8 points  (12 children)

I thought he performed an aileron roll? I remember watching a documentary that mentioned it and I'm pretty sure it wasn't a barrel roll.

Edit: I just visited the link. It was full of references to a barrel roll but then the pilot performs an aileron roll in the video. Did I just wake up in a parallel universe?

Edit 2: I seem to be getting quite a few downvoted for this. Here is the pilot himself explaining the aileron bit: http://youtu.be/AaA7kPfC5Hk?t=1m46s

[–]mvia4 20 points21 points  (0 children)

An aileron roll is performed about the axis of the fuselage, with no change in altitude. The barrel roll looks like more of a corkscrew, which is seen in the video, and that’s what makes it a 1G maneuver as mentioned.

[–]titty_boobs 4 points5 points  (2 children)

He says he put in full aileron. To do a barrel roll you pitch the plane slightly with the elevator. Then you apply full ailerons. This will bank the plane to one side, and if kept applied will roll the plane inverted on it's axis. To prevent an axial roll you counteract the yawing from the ailerons (the deviation left or right of the nose off the line at the beginning of the maneuver) with the rudder.

The keyword in all of this, even in the video you've linked to, is "1G." Which is constant "downward" force toward the belly of the plane throughout the maneuver. An axial roll, is not a 1G maneuver. A barrel roll is a 1G maneuver.

Also there's no way the Dash 80 would ever survive an axial roll.

[–]ars-derivatia 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Also there's no way the Dash 80 would ever survive an axial roll.

Hm, why though? I always thought it isn't that stressful maneuver, as opposed to loops for example. Is it an airframe stress matter or did you mean that it would simply lose aerodynamic forces at some point of the roll?

[–]jmowens51 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's a stress matter. It wasn't built to handle the negative g force associated with that maneuver.

[–]feralwolven 9 points10 points  (5 children)

Snarksneeze, he does say he used aileron into a roll on your edit video. But that doesnt make it and aileron roll. Aileron is the only control surgace that rotates the craft around the roll axis, a line drawn from nose to tail of the aircraft. The key difference is that in a 1g barrel roll the plane acts like its sliding around the inside of a cylinder (barrel) and when the plane is halfway thru (completely upside down) the momentum of the plane is going up then down, apexing like swinging an object upside down on a string (the string being the lift force of the wings) When you are upside down in this case, you are either slightly weightless or pulled into your seat. (This being a master test pilot 1 G maneuver, you wouldnt be able to tell if you were onboard with your eyes closed) In an aileron roll, you use aileron and rudder to spin without "throwing" the aircraft, and when upside down your change will fall from your pockets. Some fighter and stunt aircraft can sustain inverted g flight without falling becuase the wings are 100% aileron (either the whole wing moves or the whole length of it has an aileron) and this switches direction to produce lift down (or up if youre upside down). These passenger liners cant do aileron rolls becuase they cant roll fast enough and would start falling out of the sky as soon as the plane was sideways, and if he had enough room to fall, by time he caught it the g change could rip the wings off. Have this obnoxious animation showing the difference: https://youtu.be/jJ_N0FDXOHc

[–]keenly_disinterested 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Here's a barrel roll:


Here's an aileron roll:


Sustained inverted flight has nothing to do with the size of the aileron, it has to do with the shape of the wing, the authority of the pitch controls and the fuel and lubrication systems for the powerplant.

When inverted the aircraft needs enough elevator (the device that controls pitch) authority to overcome gravity and keep the plane from descending. The elevator is controlled by fore and aft movements of the control column or stick. While in level flight you push forward to pitch the nose down; you pull back to pitch the nose up. Most aircraft do not have enough nose-down pitch authority to prevent a descent while inverted (while inverted you have to push the stick forward to raise the nose).

Further, if the fuel system isn't designed to operate under negative G the engine will be starved of fuel and quit. Same goes for the engine lubrication system, except in the case of oil starvation the engine may be damaged.

A barrel roll eliminates all those problems, because the aircraft is under a 1 G load positive G throughout the entire maneuver.

[–]feralwolven 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I know. Im a pilot yo. i was simplifying alot. and rushing on my phone. good for you that you know what your talking about as well.

Edit: and i never said anything about aileron size, i said it changes direction. They dont use elevator to overcome gravity. the airfoil has a symetrical camber that is entirely dependant on aileron direction to determine lift direction.

[–]parabol-a 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know. Im a pilot yo. i was simplifying alot. and rushing on my phone.

You shouldn’t be resisting at work.

[–]TripDeLips -1 points0 points  (1 child)

A pilot telling everyone he's a pilot. That's never happened before.

[–]feralwolven 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i know its a running joke but i didnt mention it till iamverysmart showed up.

[–]Zomborz -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, people just don't have a clue what a barrel roll is

[–]Rodgertheshrubber 3 points4 points  (5 children)

This... This is what Boeing lost about 20 years ago... Faith in its own products, the trust of its employees, and the balls.

[–]lastPingStanding 4 points5 points  (3 children)

The 787 was an astronomical success and Boeing stock more than doubled this past year; they're doing just fine.

[–]D74248 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The 787 was a disaster. Years of delays, the infamous Potemkin rollout, the first 5 airplanes being uncertifiable, the "terrible teens".

For comparison the 777 was on time, on budget, on weight and the design changes were minor enough that the #1 airplane entered commercial service. The guy responsible for all of that was Allen Mulally, who the Boeing board then passed over for the top job in favor of a scotch tape salesman. Mulally went on to save Ford.

[–]lastPingStanding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The roll out had it's rough edges, but since then the 787's been fine. It's an incredible airplane in terms of fuel efficiency alone, and it's size is perfect for the point to point form of transit modern airlines are shifting to.

To say that deliveries and orders are high would be a monumental understatement.

[–]Rodgertheshrubber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LOL the launch of that program is an example of what not to do... I am in a position to know precisely what I'm talking about. On the stock price, Boeing stock price gives very poor insight on what is happening at the ground floor where the product is made.

[–]Nignug 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very risk averse now. If it doesn't rung the cash register, forget it. And people first, fuck dat

[–]bitter_truth_ 2 points3 points  (5 children)

[–]RobThorpe 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The Comet was an early jet airliner. It suffered from metal fatigue which caused several explosive decompressions, killing all aboard. The problems were eventually fixed. But, De Havilland lost a lot of reputation over it, that's one reason why Boeing and Douglas became so successful. The one you see in the picture was a later model modified for use as a military early warning radar plane.

[–]ClemClem510 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Wait til you see the super guppy

[–]Eternal_Pickles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Super Guppy... when you take a glorified B-29, blow it up like a balloon, beef it up with parts you had laying around, and hope it flies well enough to carry rocket parts.

[–]TistedLogic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Did it's lower lip get stung by a hive of hornets?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The 707 is still what Australia flies it's Prime Minister around in. It's the biggest lemon sitting on the tarmac these days.. but we are a bit backwards like that.

[–]Revenge_of_the_Khaki 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Didn't he pour a glass of water first to show the water not moving while inverted? I thought that was a pretty critical detail.

[–]Eyowov 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve never heard it associated with this story. The most common association with this trick I’ve heard is with another of aviation’s badasses: Mr. Bob Hoover


[–]im_a_dr_not_ 0 points1 point  (1 child)

1g is the same as earths gravity, so does this mean that didn't feel the barrel roll?

[–]Retb14 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They would have felt a slight turning sensation but no more then if the plane was rolling into a turn normally.

[–]enough_shenanigans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tex knew how to keep his name in the history books. I like this guy.

[–]ballistic-jelly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't but I think I might be able to find it. It was around 1985 and one of the planes assigned to Grissom Air Force base.

[–]boing757 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not allowed to view the story unless I pay ransom to the seattle times.

[–]ballistic-jelly -1 points0 points  (4 children)

In the mid-1980's, we had a KC135 (Boeing 707 airframe) do a barrel roll because of a autopilot malfunctiontion. It's been said that the navigator had a cup of coffee on his table and not one drop was spilled.

The plane ended up with a twisted airframe and lost some skin, but the crew were able to recover and landed safely after it dropped about 20k feet. It spent about a year in depot being repaired.

I believe some uniforms needed to be replaced as well.

[–]Disaster_Piece 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Do you happen to remember the tail number?

[–]ballistic-jelly 1 point2 points  (1 child)

it was 57-1476.

[–]Disaster_Piece 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the reply. I found a little more info on the subject. Post 25 http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1017709.

[–]inorganicorgan -2 points-1 points  (0 children)


[–]wsfarrell -2 points-1 points  (0 children)


[–]keenly_disinterested -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

A lot of misinformation here.

Here's a barrel roll.

Here's an aileron roll.

A barrel roll is a 1 positive G maneuver, which means the aircraft and its contents "feel" the same gravity throughout the maneuver as they do during straight and level flight.

That's why you can do this while performing a barrel roll.

[–]StickAndRudder 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Also misinformation here. A barrel roll will exceed 1G.

[–]keenly_disinterested 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are correct. Meant to say positive g. Corrected, thanks.

[–]Tess47 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Am I correct in seeing that a aileron roll is a cartwheel and a barrel roll is a somersault?

[–]proto_sidle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. A barrel roll is like a corkscrew while an aileron roll is a twist without rise or fall in altitude.

[–]Lucld -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Video or it didn't happen

[–]telltale_rough_edges 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s in the article.