--=======1CA4648======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-48A21EAE; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Aircraft do not have to be "ridiculously strong" to undertake an aileron roll. It's a pretty mild manoevre, and need not impose great g-loads, if well co-ordinated. See photos at http://www.historylink.org/output.cfm?file_id=390 of Tex Johnston's (in)famous performance. The Barrel Roll, is a rather different evasive move, and neither are remotely like a loop. On the other hand, I can remember seeing a 707 - actually a test model of the KC135, I think - under torture test in Seattle around 1958. The wrinkles in the skin and the bends in the wings and stabilisers were very noticeable. I was not there when things popped, but I was told it was LOUD! Robin Johnson At 08:40 AM 2/21/2003 Friday -0500, you wrote: >At 08:51 PM 2/20/2003 -0800, David Ross wrote: > >At the risk of starting the Boeing versus "them" war, Boeing makes strong > >aircraft! > >I wouldn't use the 707 as proof that Boeing still builds aircraft a >particular way. For a comparison, look at the cars we drive, compared to >the cars our parents drove. They have better gas mileage and better safety >features (airbags, anti-lock brakes), but they crumple in a crash like an >aluminum can under my foot. > >I wonder if Boeing still makes their aircraft so ridiculously strong? Or >have they, like so many modern manufacturers, figured out exactly how >strong their products have to be for normal use and refined their >engineering process so the product is exactly that strong? > >I'm not an apologist for either Airbus (or Boeing), but I can't point to >anything that makes me wonder if Airbus optimized the tolerances and >capacities of their airliners too much. Considered the performance problems >of the A340, I'm sure they has been some pressure on them to lighten those >planes however they can, to tighten tolerances when they can to gain a few >more miles of range. However, I can't think of any A340 (or A330) incidents >that make me wonder if they've gone too far in the quest for light weight. > >Back in the time of the 707, the Comet airliner had just had a series of >catastrophic failures in mid-flight; there was a design flaw that caused >metal fatigue. That may have contributed to any arguments in favor of >bullet-proofing the 707. Certainly some 727s have survived some huge >in-flight stresses (remember that 727 that went into a supersonic dive over >Michigan in the late '70s?), so it's not that Boeing said, "Oh, we'll never >make an airliner that strong again," after the 707. But to assert that >Boeing still makes craft that could survive what Tex Johnston did to that >707 might be overly optimistic. > >Nick --=======1CA4648======= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-48A21EAE Content-Disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 2/18/2003 --=======1CA4648=======--