Note that I have done it in a sailplane. In this case you simply trade altitude for kinetic energy and vice-versa. Of course the same can be done in most planes given sufficient entry speed.
MOD INTERVENTION (REF TO THE WHOLE PRIOR DISCUSSION, NOT ANY ONE POST): Again, we need to keep this thread on a higher level than petty bickering, please.
Including, no doubt, a 747.
Yes, if there is no system to specifically prevent unusual attitudes, it could certainly be done in a 747.
The Dope is awash with unusual attitudes.
Provided the required entry speed doesn’t exceed the maximum operating speed (Vmo).
That’s not a barrel roll - it’s just a roll (or an aileron roll or an axial roll). In that case, when the plane is upside down, it’s experiencing at least one negative G.
Big planes are not designed for that. I have no idea if the wings would fail, but that is not the same as a barrel roll.
I would expect some tolerance for negative g-loads in even a big jet simply because heavy turbulence can create such a situation, but agreed that it would be nowhere near what a small, aerobatic plan is required to put up with.
Either my google-fu is weak today or the maximum/minimum g-loads for the B747 and counsins are not listed on line. Are there any Doper Pilots who would happen to know the answer?
I had a look too and couldn’t find anything that wasn’t from the flight simming community.
A dash 8 is permitted +2.5g to -1.0g at zero flap and +2.0g to 0.0g with flap extended. I’d expect a larger aircraft to be similar. Limits less than those would make normal operations in turbulence problematic.
There are a list of limitations here (PDF) with the same flight load limits as the Dash 8, I can’t vouch for their accuracy though.
Well, it is not easy to find references in english. There are not many in Portuguese either, the best being a book called “Caixa-preta” (Blackbox) by Ivan Sant’Anna:
This book describes three incidents. The second story is this hijack.
The flight was VP-375, (VP is for “Vasp”, the company that does not exist anymore) and the plane prefix was PP-SNT.
Also in Portuguese (use google translator):
http://www.estadao.com.br/arquivo/nacional/2001/not20011023p33886.htm
http://www.falconbrasil.com.br/forum/index.php?showtopic=123
http://cosmo.uol.com.br/blog/blog_post.php?blog_id=12&post_id=12119
I have a B747-400 performance manual at home somewhere, I will try and remember to dig it out this evening and post the numbers.
I seem to have misplaced mine. 
Huh. Thanks for the reference… those articles seem authoritative-enough, although the video was deleted apparently. Really, really, really weird that I’ve never seen coverage of this in English-- I went through a period where I read pretty much everything on the web about airplane crashes and near-crashes, and never once came across this story. Nor is there any material about it in English… and unless I’m mistaken, the Portuguese Wikipedia doesn’t have any material on it either.
I’m still not dismissing the thought that the book made the story up wholesale.
Thanks for the links.
I understand your doubts completely. I was myself surprised with the little information that can be found on such an awsome story.
The book is a good seller and the author has a good reputation. The other two stories of the book are true and I can assure you that the author was very faithful to the facts, because I remember them well and even know people involved. One is about a Varig flight RG-820 that crashed near Orly, France in 1973 and the other is about a Varig flight RG-254t hat crashed in the amazon jungle in 1989because the pilot (incredibly) got so lost that his fuel ended far from any airport.
But all the links about VP-375 seem to refer to the book. I am puzzled myself and will try to find some independent reliable account of the facts.
A search for “brazilian hijacker captured” in google gives some results in English:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1281834.html
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=799&dat=19880930&id=2PY0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=JYgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3055,9263561
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1291&dat=19880930&id=PcUPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=e40DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6979,8467212
The incident happened in 9/29/1988 so the news reached the papers in 9/30/1988. A search of old newspapers on this date gives some more results in English.
The published material seem to confirm the general story, so I think we may believe the book when it describes in detail how the pilot did a tonneau ( a roll around its axis according to the author) and, since the hijacker was not knocked out, followed it with a manouver described as a “screw” - spinning around its axis towards the ground according to the author- and was able to control the plane after that.
So, it IS possible to roll a big plane, at least a Boeing 737-300.
Thanks! Very helpful.
You should write an article on this and post it to Wikipedia, it’s unfair that such an awesome act of piloting is almost completely unknown. I mean, this is at or above the level of the Gimli Glider, and there are hundreds of articles on that.
On the subject of rolling or even turning big aircraft, pilot types may findthis wiki article helpful. I am not a pilot, so all I know is what was carried in the local media. “Someone” claimed it takes about 1000 feet for a B-52 to recover from this flight attitude. Apparently, that’s about 750 feet more than the pilot had available to him
It probably goes without saying that the picture shows an aircraft whose altitude and attitude don’t give it any prayer of recovery. I don’t mind hotshot pilots; but I prefer they not cost taxpayers so much money, kill their crew, and endanger spectators.
I read that article too. That variant of B52 (H) had no ailerons, but spoilerons, in order to reduce the structural wing twisting that ailerons induce on long thin wings. Many Boeing jetliners use this type of control, in concert with conventinal ailerons. I wonder how that would affect a large rolling aircraft.
One way that roll spoilers affect rolling is that they work by decreasing lift to make one wing go down, there is no corresponding increase in lift on the other wing.