Slight nitpick: Commercial aircraft (multi-engine jet) not only land under power, but the pilots come in at the back of the power curve with the engines throttled up. They only cut the engines when the plane is a few feet above the runway in the ground effect, and then let it settle onto the runway. This is done for three reasons - they have engines to spare, they have horsepower to spare, and it’s safer with the turbines already spooled up to provide quicker thrust in case they need to abort the landing.
For most general aviation aircraft, especially single-engine piston, you are correct that you set up the landing so you can glide in and not need the engine when at very low altitude. For landing aborts, piston engines provide much quicker power response at low RPMs than turbines so landing at idle is also safe for that reason.
When his plane was hijacked by terrorists in 1970, Bar-Lev an experienced pilot who had flown in two wars, put his 707 into a sudden steep dive of 10000 feet over one minute with the aim of knocking the hijackers off their feet and then subduing them. It seems to have worked.
A friend’s brother, one of the RAF pilots hired to fly U2s (after Eisenhower promised that Gary Powers would be the last US pilot to be shit down over Russia) - took part in a successful program to fly & land U-2s from carriers.
Tex Johnson did his Dash-80 stunt many times, including in a KC-135 with my uncle in the jump seat.
To expand on your nitpick, the ideal airliner descent, from cruise altitude through to the approach and landing, will have the engines at idle until about 1000’ above the ground. This is the most fuel efficient and noise friendly way of doing things while also providing for a final approach with the engines spooled up. The reality is that ATC requirements often get in the way of this, but it’s the desired outcome at least. Passenger jets are surprisingly good gliders with glide ratios that far surpass that of light prop aircraft.
Another nitpick (it wouldn’t be the Straight Dope without nitpicks right?), a properly performed barrel roll will be at *positive *G the entire time, but must necessarily be greater than one G for much of it. It is not possible to either pitch up into the roll or pull out of it without exceeding one G.
To the OP, the Royal New Zealand Air Force have done some interesting displays with their B757. The YouTube link below is to a 350 knot fly-past at 100’ with a pitch up to around 50º.* The camera angle makes it look steeper.
Those details come from a quote from an internet message board so, um, they sound reasonable but I can’t vouch for their authenticity.
Getting away from airliners, one of my favourite “stunts” performed by a pilot in a desperate attempt to save his life was by aerobatic pilot Neil Williams. He was flying a Zlin when the left wing suffered a structural failure resulting in the wing “folding” up. Neil rolled inverted which held the failed wing rigid against whatever support was left. A circuit was flown like this, only rolling level as he crossed the runway threshold. He still crashed, but lived to tell the tail.
I used to have a neighbor who was a 767 pilot and instructor for Delta. He told me that airline pilots would get slightly jealous of the pilots who flew big jets for cargo companies, because those guys were allowed to “fly them the way they were meant to be flown.”
ISTR a night crash in South America where the crew was fussing with a circuit breaker that would not stay set and augered into the ground after rolling more than 180-degrees.
Your comment reminded me of this 2004 fatal incident involving two pilots who were repositioning an empty 50 seat Bombardier airliner after it had some maintenance done. They were flying from Little Rock to the Twin Cities but crashed in mid-Missouri after apparently pushing the limits of the plane.
They managed to stall both engines and could not restart them. They both died and the investigators concluded that it was all on them.
I recall hearing of this crash, but had never read the details.
Wow.
Summary: Via all sorts of unauthorized & decidedly unprofessional horsing around, they managed to kill both engines - at 38,000’ with 6 suitable airports within glide range. But they burned off their altitude trying to restart engines, using incorrect procedures while misleading controllers about the true nature of their problem. They wound up out of glide range of any suitable airport, so they crashed, destroying the plane and themselves.
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
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.
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.
