Rolling a Business Jet? How common?

There was a C550 in Europe that crashed a while back. The CVR was recovered and the crew was heard discussing about how maneuverable the aircraft was. The pilot told the copilot he had rolled this aircraft several times. If memory serves right, he did rolled it successfully then provided aerobatic training to the copilot who goofed it up so bad they never recovered.
 
Anymouse said:
This is the one I was referring to as **** poor airmanship.

BTW... When I refer to "MC-12" I'm referring to all the King Airs that are configured for similar mission work (Civilian and military).
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I don't know if the contractor dudes had a bad case of the "wachis" like my old squadron did. Sad but wouldn't be surprised.
 
JimNtexas said:
Years ago when I was the USAF staff we chartered Learjets for use in various training and testing stuff. All the Captains were ex-fighter pilots. One of them went nuts up in Alaska one day, rolled the airplane, buzzed some houses, and in general acted like a 13 year old.

He got caught, but I was pretty sure that many of those guys having trouble controlling their inner teenager. For the next rev of the contract we spec'd that the airplanes would have a GPS (back when gps was new and exotic) connect to an ACARS unit. So we could keep a leash on some of those old guys.
Click to expand...

Friend was telling me the other day, they had that same problem with Navy T-39s. Retired fighter pilots, gone contract and flying the things like Bob Hoover. No way I'd take an aircraft that old and do the things that he told me.
 
As I recall, the nut case who bought the farm in the B52, had been warned several times before and was turned in by the co pilot who was eventually killed with him. He wasn't trying to loop it, rather was trying to cut a turn and stalled it at about two hundred feet. I think the base commander was fired over it as he knew this fool was dangerous and did nothing. I also thought the airplane tex rolled as a Boeing test pilot was an early 707. True?
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I also thought the airplane tex rolled as a Boeing test pilot was an early 707. True?
Click to expand...

It was the Boeing 367-80 (commonly just called the dash 80). This was a spec built plane that was designed to try to convince the military to buy a jet powered tanker. The wing was substantially modified when they developed into the KC-135. Then when the 707 was designed, they had to widen the fuselage over the KC-135 in order to compete with the upcoming DC-8 offering from Douglas.

707 was the marketing name for Boeing's entry into the jet passenger plane. The 367 in the prototype name was a bit of marketing subterfuge. They already had a Model 367 piston tanker. They tried to hide that they were designing a new aircraft from the competition. The aircraft was painted with Boeing 707 on the tail (in it's yellow and brown paint job which was restored to it prior to being delivered to the Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy Center when the facility opened in 2003).
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
It was the Boeing 367-80 (commonly just called the dash 80). This was a spec built plane that was designed to try to convince the military to buy a jet powered tanker. The wing was substantially modified when they developed into the KC-135. Then when the 707 was designed, they had to widen the fuselage over the KC-135 in order to compete with the upcoming DC-8 offering from Douglas.

707 was the marketing name for Boeing's entry into the jet passenger plane. The 367 in the prototype name was a bit of marketing subterfuge. They already had a Model 367 piston tanker. They tried to hide that they were designing a new aircraft from the competition. The aircraft was painted with Boeing 707 on the tail (in it's yellow and brown paint job which was restored to it prior to being delivered to the Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy Center when the facility opened in 2003).
Click to expand...
....believe me, the Air Force did not need convincing ! They were desperate to get rid of the KC97 which was way too slow for the B47 and the 52. When I was in , the 135 was thought to be very similar to the 707 with no real major modifications. They had a tremendous amount of accidents with both KC97s and B47s , sometimes while refueling sometimes not.
 
I should have worded it "convince the military to buy a jet powered tanker FROM THEM." Yes, the military was indeed thinking about jet tankers. Boeing started working on the dash 80 however in advance of any actual solicitation for such. In fact, they had finished it by the time the military did put out a solicitation for one; the dash 80 was built. While Lockheed technically won the competition, the Air Force bought 250 of the already existent KC-135 design from Boeing while they were waiting for Lockheed to deliver the ConnieII prototype. They eventually cancelled the L-193 program entirely.
 
My brother was a mechanic on the team that recovered the Dash 80 from the bone yard. They flew it back to Seattle with the gear down because they were afraid of a gear failure. I believe they had the flaps down as well but I forget. My mom and dad were as Seafair when Tex Johnston rolled it over the crowd.
 
flyingron said:
There's no such thing as a 1G roll. Despite Tex's explanation of the dash 80 roll, the barrel roll is not a 1G manoeuvre (very few are). It is a small number of positive G's however (ranging from .5 to about 2.5 in a well-executed roll).

Whatever you do, don't do it with a bunch of passengers loaded up to gross. My friend with a Baron gets nervous when I grab the wheel and say "I think I can roll this thing."
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/GeneratePDF.aspx?id=ATL07FA077&rpt=fa
Click to expand...

Jeez. That's awful!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top