Like in the film flight.

I say yes, for a few moments, like in the film.

I say No and this deserves a google survey

jbshack said..

WA71 said..



Na....

Actually i was told they can. I have a customer who trains/instructs on the big monsters out at Pearce. I think something like a C17 that any plan given the correct space can fly inverted

But what about the overhead luggage?!?

Almosts any aircraft can sort of fly inverted, but most aircraft cannot maintain inverted flight.

I say 'sort of fly inverted' because unless the engine oil and fuel system is made for inverted flight then you very quickly lose engine power due to fuel starvation when the fuel pickups start sucking air. The fuel pickup points are always at the bottom of the tank, which becomes the top of the tank when inverted.
Same goes for the oil system. Once the oil pickup sucks air the engine self destructs in a minute or two.
Aircraft made for inverted flight have drop valves in the oil pickup line which redirects the pickup point to the gravity side of the oil reservoir. Various systems exist to maintain the fuel supply.

Also, I say 'almost any aircraft' because some aircraft simply refuse to roll over on their back, probably due to excessive inbuilt natural stability and a lack of sufficient aileron control to overcome this. The old Moth Minor was one of them. They were almost impossible to roll on their back. Probably just as well too, because their wings had a bad habit of falling off.
Yes. Off. Right Off.

So, can an airliner fly upside down?
If you don't mind stuffing up the engines, or if they are stuffed anyway, and the aileron control is sufficient to overcome the inbuilt stability, then yes.
The other question is then, can it maintain inverted flight in a descent once the engines have carked it?
Probably yes, so long as the wings are clean (no flaps lowered or slots open) and you maintain a rapid descent rate.
The wings are a reasonably symetrical profile and should generate lift while inverted, but at a higher airspeed.
However, I think it is impossible that you could maintain level flight, inverted and at low altitude in an airliner and recover to level flight before you hit the ground. The act of rolling back to level flight gobbles up lots of power, airspeed and/or altitude.

Yes it has been done. I think it was a 707. The pilot was giving a demonstration flight and decided to go for it.
Pretty sure he was sacked or asked to retire straight after as no permission or planing was done for the stunt. There is a video online somewhere of it.

I don't remember anything of that movie after the bit where catalina went the full frontal nude

Mark _australia said..

yes they can - briefly like pweedas said.

Now more importantly - can they take down a building? Cos that has nevverrr been discussed here

I bet you get a wooden spoon for Christmas every year Mark.

RAAF stuff doesnt need to be inverted to fall outa the sky.

Lots of dented ground around Gingin and Bindoon to prove it.


stephen

I was in the Air Force when that happened. A legitimate training exercise conducted about 10,000 ft too low. I have also heard the story concerning the 707 test pilot. Apparently there were representatives of quite a few airlines on board for a display, the pilot rolled the aircraft and no one spilled a drop of their free drinks. The story goes that the pilot got ripped a new one until the orders started flowing in as a result of his stunt!

As we are in the southern hemisphere all the planes fly belly up

Mark _australia said..

WA71 said..

sn said..



RAAF stuff doesnt need to be inverted to fall outa the sky.







Lots of dented ground around Gingin and Bindoon to prove it.







stephen

Mooliabeenee air strip has heeps of holes in it

Your circlework doesn't count lol

Busted

Not a conspiracy, just stupidity! I think you're right Rupert. From memory, feather two engines on one side, the aircraft rolls in that direction losing altitude. To recover, feather the two remaining engines to bring it back level and stable then bring all four engines back up to speed. I do remember that the procedure requires at least 10,000 ft to do. I think that there was confusion around the altitude. Someone probably thought that 10,000 was the minimum required altitude rather than the altitude you would lose during the manoeuvre. I think that it wasn't a required training exercise, more likely someone found it in the book and thought they'ed give it a try.

"Feathering" is a prop term. Unless you Raafy boys use it for a different term, you can't feather a jet engine.

pweedas said..

I've been feathered.
It was very nice.

What's the difference between kinky & erotic?

kinky is using a feather...

...erotic is using the whole chook!


Btw latedropeddy - your vid may be 'slightly' offensive to some?

Rex said..

Toph said..



"Feathering" is a prop term. Unless you Raafy boys use it for a different term, you can't feather a jet engine.

I think it was called an asymmetric engine shut down that they were practising, something like that anyway, I remember watching an ABC four corners devoted to it.

'Asymmetric engine shut downs' have a long history of disastrous results.
They used to include it on twin engine aircraft training in take off procedures, that is one engine failure on take off.
When they looked into the statistics of it some years back, they discovered that many more people were dying in training for it than ever happened in real life events.
They decided that even if the pilots had no training at all in the procedure, there would still be less fatalities by not doing the training and just dealing with the rare cases as they happened.
Consequently, I don't think anyone includes it in multi-engine training anymore.
It is still well covered at a safe altitude however, and is reasonably safe so long as altitude and airspeed limits are observed.
In aviation, altitude and airspeed are the only critical issues. Everything else is optional.