Nobody’s mentioned the Soviet SST passenger jet TU-144. They demonstrated at least one extreme maneuver at the Paris Airshow, IIRC. A little too extreme, unfortunately. - YouTube
Mr. Powers probably did crap his pants when his plane was hit by that missile.
:o
The following is CGI. It’s still impressive to watch.
I lived briefly in Sioux City a few years after Flight 232 and worked with a lot of people who were there that day.
Many people climbed out of the crash not only visibly uninjured and not even dirty, but everyone went to the hospital to be checked out. One story that made it into the news was that of a woman who casually observed to her children that her fingertips went numb whenever she turned her head to one side, and this was overheard by a nurse who put a collar on her and bumped her to the front of the triage line. That was a wise decision, because the woman had a broken neck and might have become a quadriplegic had she moved too quickly. Her neck was stabilized, and she walked out of the hospital a few days later and made a full recovery.
Another story that DIDN’T make the news, but was quite believable, was the man who walked into the bar even before First Responders arrived at the wreckage, and told the bartender, “Pour me a double, and keep 'em coming.” He was uninjured, but ended up being admitted to the hospital with alcohol poisoning.
And another nitpick (and I realize this is really picky): In the above discussion, we’re really talking about aileron rolls, not barrel rolls. Yes, aileron rolls are a nice positive G maneuver, not much stress on the airplane. Aileron rolls are what Bob Hoover is doing in those videos of him in a Rockwell Shrike or Sabreliner.
Barrel rolls are a completely different maneuver, sort of a roll superimposed on a loop. And they’re different from slow rolls, where the aircraft rolls while maintaining a straight and level flight path. During a slow roll, the aircraft (and pilot) experience negative one G when they’re inverted. (Also, slow rolls are not necessarily slow.) And then there are snap rolls, which are sort of a horizontal spin. The aircraft rolls because of asymmetrical lift with one wing stalled and one wing still flying.
OK, back to your regularly scheduled discussion.
Lockheed test pilots looped a C-130 at Farnborough last year (at the 1:50 mark). They’ve rebranded the C-130 as an LM-100 and are selling it as a cargo plane.
Actually, that seems an entirely appropriate response to me, although I hope I would mention while still sober where I was headed and to tell the EMTs where to find me.
nearwildheaven, the wings are flexing in the wrong direction in that video. The wings move the aircraft; the aircraft doesn’t move the wings.
Nor is CGI of inanimate objects all that impressive any more.
I can usually detect CGI, and I know very little about aerodynamics. I also figured it was fake, because the camera obviously wasn’t on a tripod, and the “person” didn’t run away when they realized the plane was going all wonky.
There’s also the caption by the owner of the video:
Which is why a good animator needs to have a very good grasp of physics. It is quite common for big budget movies to have CGI that looks “off” because the animators don’t understand inertia and cause and effect.
I’m reminded of when LSLGuy landed a 767-300 on an aircraft carrier!
Not for real, but he was an airline pilot in a real simulator, and had a chance to do it just for kicks! 
In the commentary track for Who Framed Roger Rabbit one of the animators said they’d deliberately made Jessica Rabbit’s boobs move opposite the way they should have.
Man I miss LSLGuy. Imagine how he’d blow this thread way…
ETA: But we still have Richard Pearse, who now has to work overtime.
In 1979 on TWA Flight 841, a 727-31 went supersonic and pulled 6 g’s, yet the plane and passengers survived: TWA Flight 841 (1979) - Wikipedia
Except hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.:rolleyes:
The Oklahoma capsizing in the movie Pearl Harbor is awful. It looks like the far side of the ship is floating up.
Ironically, bad physics in CGI then leads to people thinking real life is wrong as it doesn’t look like the movies, e.g, 9/11.
This is a pet peeve of mine, e.g. fighter jets that can pull 20 or 30 g and have a thrust-to-weight ratio on par with a top-fuel dragster. I wish they would use flight simulators to generate realistic flight paths/attitudes, and then import that information into their CGI machines for top-quality visual rendering. That seems like the best way to achieve both realistic dynamics and realistic visuals without incurring the massive costs of using actual aircraft.
[Moderating]
Nobody of any nationality died in the incident engineer_comp_geek referenced, nor did it lead to anyone dying. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died of unrelated causes is completely irrelevant to that incident and this thread, and your post served no purpose other than to make a political potshot. Which is against the rules of this forum. This is an official Warning.
Me too 
Don’t go anywhere Richard!