How To Fly The P-47 - High Altitude Flight and Aerobatics (1943)

Courtesy FedFlix, public.resource.org
National Archives and Records Administration
How to Fly the P-47: High Altitude Flight and Aerobatics
War Department. Army Air Forces. (06/20/1941 - 09/26/1947)
ARC Identifier 2772 / Local Identifier 18-AF-107C. Demonstrates the Thunderbolt in dives, loops, slow rolls, Immelman turns, spins, and recoveries, and half rolls. Stresses precautions and proper speeds for various altitudes. Also explains functions of turbosupercharger and water injection systems in high altitude flight.
Made possible by a donation from Alexsandr Milewski.
Click to subscribe! bit.ly/subAIRBOYD #AIRBOYD #AvGeek

[@smellyfella5077]

Jimmy: "Ya gotta have a turbo supercharger to take a P-47 upstairs" LOL...I love the innuendo of that era.....it was seedy but clean and clever.

[@manuelperales8217]

The first flying warbird I ever seen was in 1994, at Duxford, on a sunday afternoon. The P-47 suddenly was appearing flying at high speed and buzzing at very low altitude over the airfield. What such strong impression of power..I'll never forget that moment.

[@claudeculbertson4385]

Nel Delamo I

[@ttice5068]

This series has been wonderful. Thank you.

[@mickkennedy1344]

When adjusting the graphic equaliser on the stereo in your P47 always add Bass Boost above 25,000 ft -- hamburgers should never be eaten below 1,000 ft, except in an emergency.

[@SabraStiehl]

I don't know the overhaul interval for the R 2800 engine in WW II, but when they were later put onto the Martin 404 and Convair 240 piston-engined airliners, it was every 2500 hours. I flew the Martin for three years for Piedmont out of Wilmington, N.C.Without constant maintenance, those engines were prone to blow jugs (lose a cylinder).

[@SabraStiehl]

Another thing, the octane represents the fuel air mixture's resistance to pinging, i.e., the mixture exploding before top dead center, which if that happens subtracts from the power produced. With higher octane, you can compress the air more for increased power. The P-47 had an emergency power boost for use in combat, which was water-methanol being sprayed in minute amounts into the cylinders. The mass of the water contributed to engine power; plus the 106 octane methanol helped.

[@flaircraft]

@noonedude101 My grandfather flew the P-47 in the Pacific during WWII. One time he mentioned that the P-47 pilots were forbidden to do negative G's and especially outside loops. The very next thing he said was "Of course, we did that kind of stuff all the time."

[@martinlagrange8821]

Thanks for posting this ! Its made a big difference to my IL2 1946 experience - finally got the better of the 190 D9 with this video briefing !

[@TheAirplaneDriver]

Interesting how full opposite aileron was needed to get the plane to spin. Clearly a nice clean design with no nasty wing drop characteristics in a stall.

[@archiedarwin7763]

InstaBlaster

[@chrisnizer1885]

Amazing how the P-47 performed so well in the tactical/ground support role when it was designed to be a high-altitude fighter. That's not to say it didn't do well in the high-altitude fighter role. It did. But I don't think anyone expected it would do so well as a ground attack aircraft. A happy accident I suppose. Unless you happened to be the target of one.

[@charlesjames1442]

100 0.5" slugs every second helps a lot too.

[@TheFlaggerX]

This film is for the P-47B, as the later models had 14' propellors, which worked a lot better. To think Frances Gabreski or Robert Johnson probably watched this film. And late showed it to trainees!

[@SabraStiehl]

As a kid I wanted to fly the P-51 or P-47 in Europe, then the F-86 in Korea. Then when I went through flight school in 1960-61 in class 62B the F-100 was crashing right and left because of control problems and the culture at the gunnery school at Nellis, and the first 13 F-102 pilots to eject died when they hit the vertical stabilizer, so when I actually had a chance to fly a fighter I opted for a transport out of the closest base to my home town. Back then was a bad time for USAF jet jocks.

[@jimintheweb632]

Hey AirBoyd! Thanks way much for post'N this vid / movie. The 47 ThunderBolt was / is a big beutiful beast with 8 50s that bite big time. First time I saw her, I fell in love. After the war (WWII for all you diaper boys out there), the surpluss offered the 47s NEW & IN THE CASE (pre Atlantic shipment) for $50. Got me 10 of them. Thanks again, AirBoyd. I'll be back most definately. And just kidding bout me getting the 10. The $50 part was real, though.

[@sking0369]

1:20 Jimmy, would you like to have a brother or sister? Go upstairs now!!

[@aiolos2411]

Holy crap, "Jimmy" at the start of this video, is exactly how I was when I was his age! XD

[@stylinstylist2005]

Are you still like that now?

[@aiolos2411]

@@stylinstylist2005 To my dad I still am, haha!

[@geven08]

Snap rolls are limited because of the stress they induce on the air frame and engine mounts. Mostly the engine mounts. They can crack. Large radial engines hung way out in front of the air frame were especially susceptible to this.

[@robertalderman5614]

Wow! This is the place to find out!

[@SabraStiehl]

The beauty of the P-47 was twofold. First, its engine was not disabled by a round into the radiator as was the P-51's. Secondly, its 8 M-15 .50 cal machine guns could disable armor by penetrating from the top where is was weak, making it a scourge on the battlefield. Postwar investigation of the 2.75" rockets deployed later revealed that only about one in 25 hit its target, but the terror factor of the rockets and the scattering shrapnel must have been extremely high.

[@ShawnaGraham50]

Just think Jimmy is at least 80 years old now.

[@charlesjames1442]

And his pretty sister is well into her nineties.

[@SabraStiehl]

At about 70% of the speed of sound (.70 mach), normally in a dive, the P-47 experienced compressibility due to the wing and horizontal stabilizer's thickness, so a shock wave formed over the wing and horizontal stabilizer which as the plane's speed increased within compressibility reversed elevator control. At low altitude in thick air, the pilot had a chance of recovering, but not at high or medium altitude. The fix was to use one-piece stabilators or elevons on jets instead of elevators.

[@jetpilot3714]

Fascinating information on all three comments of yours. Out of curiosity what year did you fly for Piedmont? I’m a part 121 guy myself-best job ever!

[@gcmbl]

@asrlb45: I am not sure where chrisrobsoar got 16% per thousand, as the generally accepted number is 2% per thousand, but IAS is definitely less at higher altitudes, not greater, unless you are speaking of some odd effect of extreme altitude. At normal altitudes, however, the 2% decrease rule is pretty accurate.

[@SabraStiehl]

Since we've been discussing A/S, compressibility, and such, I thought I'd mention that someone recently launched himself from a balloon at an altitude well in excess of a 100,000' and passed through the mach on the way down. If the magazines are correct, he reached mach 1.27 and didn't even feel it. A shock wave formed on him and likely departed, then reformed as he slowed when the air became more dense, then it disappeared as the air around him became subsonic. Quite a ride!

[@charlesjames1442]

Some fellow named Bumgartner ... ?

[@twoaxis]

the person who owns the original movie on celluloid or whatever has a real priceless treasure

[@SabraStiehl]

The R-2800 (2800 sq in engine displacement) engine in the P-47 produced 2000 HP with the 100 octane gas used in WW II. After the war those same engines found use in both civilian and military planes. I flew the C-123 at Pope AFB in the early '60s where using 145 octane gas the engines produced 2500 HP. Then I left the service and for three years flew Martin 404s for Piedmont Airlines which using 130 octane fuel produced 2300 HP from the R-2800s. So the octane determines the horsepower produced.

[@tom7601]

Engine modifications required higher octane fuel. Fuel, by itself, doesn't increase horsepower.

[@skm9420]

@@tom7601 the r2800 and 4630 were built the same along with all other war bird engines. The fuel determines Max horse power with the war birds.

[@scrfce123]

@0MoTheG A compressor increases the mass of a gas for any given volume (say square inch), so it is by no means an air pump. A fan can be defined as a type of pump, because it can only increase velocity - not mass. Also, the compressor in a turbocharger is driven by a shaft. Another type of compressor commonly employed in warbirds is the supercharger - these were engine driven.

[@colindhowell]

@0MoTheG They did use both; the P-47's R-2800 engine included an internal geared supercharger, driven directly by the engine crankshaft, which further compressed the air already compressed by the turbosupercharger. However, a crankshaft-driven supercharger steals power from the engine, while a turbosupercharger does not, so the P-47's engine supercharger provided only modest boost to minimize the power loss; it relied on the turbo for high-altitude boost.

[@Ken-fh8iv]

One of my all-time favorite planes :-) Sadly, I'll never get to fly one...

[@BigRedPower59]

Ken Keep buying lottery tickets. That’s what I’m doing. The fates may shine.

[@colindhowell]

@freedomintheskies You're confused. "Turbocharger" is just a shortened term for "turbosupercharger". They're different names for the same thing: a compressor driven by an exhaust turbine. A turbo-compound engine is different: the exhaust turbine doesn't drive a compressor, it drives the engine crankshaft. Turbo-compounding has no effect on manifold pressure; it just extracts more energy from the exhaust that would otherwise be wasted.

[@Entity_BlackRed777]

Wow, this ACTUALLY helped me!! I CAN FLY!!!!!

[@vascoribeiro69]

In these days (1943) the P-47 had no dive recovery flaps, so it was easy to get under compressibility in a dive. The maximum mach number was 0,87 and critical mach number was 0,75. The 1945 -N could dive to 0.83 thanks to dive recovery flaps.

[@SabraStiehl]

To answer your query about water injection on early military jets, they used it because the engines were grossly underpowered. Most jet engines for awhile have been turbofans rather than turbojets. With a turbofan engine most (usually about 80%) of the air goes around the engine rather than through it, which increases efficiency. Somewhere online there's information on John Boyd (of OODA loop fame) that describes how anything about aircraft, civilian and military, is a result of compromises.

[@davidhall8874]

When he said at the beginning about getting out of spins, I assumed he was referring to the way that man and woman were spun together. I thought that by introducing a you boy into a spin will certainly break up a spin!

[@SabraStiehl]

I like what you said, so please don't be offended by my adding a few parameters. The speed of sound at sea level on a standard day (temperature 59 degrees F or 15 degrees C) is 761 mph. At 35,000', the beginning of the stratosphere, which actually may be considerably above or below that altitude, the temperature is normally minus 55-57 degrees with a speed of sound of 671 mph. On a standard day (29.92 inches of mercury barometric pressure) half the air is above 18,160' and the other half below.

[@vascoribeiro69]

This video is from the old B series...The P-47 pilots avoided dogfighting...they just came screaming down at high speed firing the eight 0.5s and then using speed to climb again to safe altitude. And in the M series they had speed brakes so they can recover from compressibility when diving, so they can kept behind anything including the Me-262 without loosing control.

[@johntopolovsky3197]

The 56th Fighter Group (made up of 100% P-47's) shot down more German aircraft than any other European Theatre fighter group. And the P-47 would of likely shot down more German aircraft than the P-51 had its role as a pure fighter plane not been shifted to the P-51 (the P-47 primary role then became ground attack).

[@charlesjames1442]

The R-2800 was much less vulnerable to ground fire than the Packard Merlin. And the P-38 was expensive to build; plus pilots needed extra training for the two engines. The USAAF needed it more in the Pacific for the range and over-water safety factor.

[@deetwodcs4683]

I'll use this for DCS thanks!

[@dukecraig2402]

This is cool, if I watch all the videos and someone gives me a Thunderbolt I'll be able to fly it.

[@groller7295]

“Here’s $10 jimmy go catch some Popeye cartoons at the movies “- guy with his sister

[@SabraStiehl]

I don't need a lecture from you, Vasco. What I said was true. Radial aircraft engines have a set spark advance and two sets of spark plugs, such that depending on the octane of the fuel used engine output can be set up to be different.

[@wrh61]

@0MoTheG Being an aircraft mechanic not to mention a pilot, and aircraft owner I stand behind 'necessary evil'. Adding complexity (more components, extra manual controls, not to mention heat) is a potentail reliability, pilot time management issue. This really didn't change much until jet fueled turbine engines and pure jet engines came along. As a percentage of all autos, the number of turbo models is fairly small and although they have come a long way engineering wise, simplicity rules.

[@scrfce123]

@freedomintheskies Thanks for the reply. I think that the 'turbo' thats referred to in this video is simply a conventional turbocharger. Judging by the schematic and the fact that it also has wastegates and an intercooler, it can be surmised that is capable of increasing manifold pressure; therefore it can be defined as a turbocharger. A turbo-compounder does not have the capacity to compress inlet air. It acts as a separate engine that transfers power to crank.

[@detroitbluesguy]

They didn't say anything about compartment for your balls as these pilots had huge ones!!Thanks

[@SabraStiehl]

In the future, airliners will have one pilot and a dog in the cockpit. The pilot will be there to feed the dog, and the dog will be there to bite the pilot if he touches something.

[@tracyquiring4185]

lol

[@scrfce123]

@0MoTheG If it has a turbocharger, then it has a compressor. Back in the early days, negative G forces were problematic because they interfered with the operation of carburettor floats; the float would rise above the fluid line and stop the flow of fuel to the carburettor - hence starving the engine. The P-47 had a pressurised carb though, so negative G's were never a problem.

[@TheErilaz]

They solved that on the Merlin using Miss Shillings orifice.

[@JIMJAMSC]

"So Jimmy, Do you know what a clock block is?"

[@spottydog4477]

the narrator doesnt explain why SNAP ROLLS are not permitted...can you explain.....- or did I miss something in the film? thank you

[@paulmurphy42]

They starve the engine of oil.

[@lindamcentaffer5969]

Must've been very early production plane. They continually strengthened the airplane to handle the power & speed the R-2800 generated. Over in the E.T.O., they did snap rolls.

[@davidwhite8633]

spottydog4477 High airframe stress and even higher gyroscopic forces on the propeller and therefore the engine mounts, finally, as someone about 6 comments ago mentioned.

[@TheJacobshapiro]

The earlier models had problems with oil pressure when inverted. The later models (D and after I believe) solved this issue and could do just about any aerobatics.

[@vascoribeiro69]

Well it's not like that. The octane rate is the resistance that a fuel offer to self ignite under high pressure and temperature. This means that, with high octane fuel, you can compress air, so you can put more inside the engine, with turbo and superchargers and inter coolers and even water to cool down the mixture...

[@colindhowell]

@scrfce123 Well, engineering technology has improved, but also the modern turbos you normally hear about are for car and motorcycle engines. They're small and can easily handle very high speeds. The P-47's engine is much bigger and its turbo is a monster in comparison; check around 9:30 in the "pilot familiarization" film in this series. In such a large turbo the rotational stresses are greater, so it can't turn anywhere near as fast.

[@colindhowell]

@0MoTheG I'm sure the engines got lots of overhauls. As SabraStiehl posted above, big piston engines like this had short overhaul periods of only around a couple thousand hours. Might be worse for the P-47, with the added stresses of "war emergency power" operation. I'd assume when an engine had to be taken out for overhaul, the aircraft would have another engine swapped in to keep it in service.

[@jkorshak]

I appreciate this presentation from the national archives but the commercial interruptions every 4-5 minutes is too frequent and kind of irritating.

[@0MoTheG]

@scrfce123 not in my book. To me a compressor is an air-pump that is driven by the shaft. (in the context of combustion engines) They could have used both f.e. to maintain pressure and reduce turbo-RPM by engaging the compressor at high altitudes. the lubrication must have been the problem, not the mixing.

[@0MoTheG]

@wrh61 why "evil"? the turbo-charger is part of every diesel-engine and many-gasoline engines today, although they are not build for high altitude performance. In a car the load varies more and quicker than in an aircraft and maintenance-intervals and time of life are much longer. I doubt these aircraft were ment to get many overhauls, many might have gotten shot down in the first encounter. They were build for performance and number not for a long service time.

[@FrancescoVenturelli]

If you like modern civil airplanes too, take a look at the ITVV series... tons of infos

[@100MPG]

Good film! The P47 had tactical mach no. of 0.71 compared to FW190 and Me109 which were 0.75. Mustang was better (0.78) and after 1944 Lt J Doolittle ordered more P51s to fly top cover for B17s. The P47 went on to low level ground attack role

[@scottinohio5131]

100mpg you have your facts backwards. You have been watching too much TV whose facts are erroneous!!!!!!!!

[@colindhowell]

@scrfce123 Actually, turbochargers are still often found in higher-end piston-engined aircraft used in general aviation.

[@chrisrobsoar]

The maxium speed Vne (Velocity Never Exceed) remains the same True Air Speed (TAS) as altitude increases. The Indicated Air Speed (IAS) is less because the air becomes less dense with altitude. It reduces by about 16% per 10,000ft. BTW: The True Air Speed Stall speed increase with altitude at the same rate that the Air Speed indicator under reads, so the IAS stall speed remains the same. When the stall speed and Vne meet, this is the maximum altitude the aircraft can fly.

[@davidwhite8633]

Chris Robinson Absolute ceiling is not when further climb is prevented by a stall. That is a common misconception. Absolute ceiling is the altitude at which Vx and Vy are equal.

[@deaustin4018]

a P7 and Ludwig van. Yeah, I guess they go together fairly well.

[@ConvairDart106]

My favorite plane in Aces High. 8 50's, 10 rockets, 2 1,000 pounders under the wings, and a 500 pounder on the belly, and I can decimate an airfield!

[@lulubellers]

There were some nice puffy clouds in 1943.

[@straighttailpilot]

@flaircraft yeah. I forget what kind of weakness the p47 had with negative manuevers. you werent supposed to fly inverted for more than 5 minutes either I believe.

[@captainkttyhwk]

No inverted oil system. More than a few seconds of neg g's and will lose oil pressure...then the engine. Same as the mustang.

[@DSRT888]

The P-47 was a tank.

[@ostrobogulousgaming]

So useful for War Thunder I must find more :) awesome vid share

[@nkm901]

Tropical Chedder I love the diagram at 18:00 lol

[@DmdShiva]

@@nkm901 The cumulogranite clouds are unforgiving...

[@nkm901]

@@DmdShiva .The plane plows through them the first pass no problem but when it tries to reenter them, it seems it was more than the plane could handle 😏

[@0MoTheG]

@scrfce123 What I find important: there is only one turbocharger and no compressor. (negative g-forces are disallowed)

[@justanotherguy469]

How come videos of flight from 1943 are clearer than videos from advanced aircraft chasing UFO's today?

[@jamesstephens6941]

Plausable deniability.

[@scrfce123]

Wow... 18250 RPM for the turbo? Modern turbos have the potential to spin at almost 10 times that RPM. Hearing about oil starvation, turbochargers and wastegates reminds me of cars more than planes... Amazing how far we've come.

[@tom7601]

180,000 RPM?? :-)

[@doctorxring]

Loved the Beethoven in the background. We should have been on the SAME SIDE as the Germans in WWII.

[@Ithorn110]

Why?

[@richardlahan7068]

And been complicit in crimes against humanity?

[@jkorshak]

Is it the uniforms or is it the murderous assembly line of slave labor, ethnic cleansing, and genocide that's so appealing?

[@SabraStiehl]

I totally agree. One of today's problems is that many airline pilots have never been upside down nor had real stall or spin training, so if a plane gets into a high bank angle or stall situation, they may be lost. Another problem is that in airplanes where the only thing you can't use the autopilot for is the takeoff, some people get lazy, only hand flying just before a check ride. And some pilots now pay more attention to their laptops and cell phones than the flight and engine instruments.

[@6h471]

I still cant believe they eliminated spin training from the private pilot curriculum. Low altitude stall / spin accidents are still the biggest cause of small aircraft fatalities.

This is a dream @uploader

[@stuartvaughn1569]

"Hey son, go up stairs. Mommy and Daddy are trying to get some action."

[@notaire2]

Sehr verständlicher Film, obwohl ein bisschen zu vereinfacht. Also, warum ist die Hintergrundmusik Beethovens?

[@omepeet2006]

Ah, Sie sind wohl Feinschmecker. Hätten Sie denn lieber Chopin oder Franz von Suppé? Wagner’s Walküre wäre aber auch nicht fehl…

[@notaire2]

Wilhelm Tell von Rossini, z. B., würde besser sein.

[@omepeet2006]

Tja, da haben Sie recht.

[@notaire2]

Danke sehr!

[@scrfce123]

@colindhowell Yeah, I've heard of turbocharged Lycoming and Continental engines. They seem to find use in high end, pressurised aircraft. The turbo must also divert some compressed air to cabin A/C on these models???

[@richardlahan7068]

There was a cockpit heater but no A/C and no pressurization. That's why the pilot had to go on oxygen above 10,000 feet and pilots were bundled up in cold temperature clothing.

[@simonjackson7269]

Similar wing shape to the Spitfire!!

[@charlesjames1442]

Notice the contrails off the wingtips?

[@SabraStiehl]

A good example of your treatise on A/S reference stall speed is the envelope of the U-2, where at 91,000' or so (obtainable with a light fuel load) if you speed up 5 kts you experience a high-speed buffet and if you slow down 5 kts you stall the regular way. You would also likely stall if you suddenly pulled the power lever back, since with power off the stall speed is higher. What's your flying background?

[@SabraStiehl]

In the late '60s I listened (as the F/O, or copilot) while the captain ran his mouth so long that we were almost over the destination airport before he started down. I could have stopped his talk, but he was such a nice guy that I didn't have the heart, and this was not dangerous, only a waste of time and money. So, some pilots have always been subject to losing focus, but that tendency is now easier to fall victim to with the advent of the glass cockpit, cell phones, laptops, and the rest.

[@FLOTRED]

Very interessant!

[@hckie]

AFAIK Vne and stall speed are always IAS. Airspeed indicator basically shows how much air (as in mass) is hitting the pitot tube and therefore the entire aircraft. Vne and Stall speeds increase in TAS with more altitude as you need greater speed to stay airborne or damage the airframe with excess drag (from air resistance). The service ceiling is met when the engine/prop can't produce enough power for the wings to produce lift.

[@davidwhite8633]

hckie Service ceiling--rate of climb reduced to 100 fpm. Absolute ceiling--cannot climb any higher.

[@Entity_BlackRed777]

Old style, man!!

[@charlesjames1442]

I bought a case of 16oz. cans in Minneapolis last summer. Wish I'd bought two!

[@MsLilyhorse]

P-47 could out dive everything except the Tempest.

[@TheJacobshapiro]

MsLilyhorse it could easily outdive a tempest at higher altitudes. The turbo meant it made a lot more power than most other fighters above around 25k feet where most belt-driven superchargers reached peak efficiency.

[@williamkillingsworth2619]

Also superchargers use potential horse power. Turbos make more power givem the same airflow.

[@charlesjames1442]

I wouldn't be surprised; the Tempest was a newer design. All warbird airframes were advancing at an exponential rate from the late thirties to 1946. But prop fighters were getting to the peak of their potential. After 500mph, it was a case of diminishing returns.

[@Turambar3791]

What have you done fucking schools. With that age that guy can really become a engineer, but now?

[@MrElSatan]

@chrisrobsoar great !!thx!

[@SabraStiehl]

You're right. In the late '50s Eastern Airlines ordered 8 Douglas DC-8s (with augmented power on takeoff using water methanol), but before the planes arrived the Eastern pilot group decided that since unused water methanol was dumped after takeoff they didn't meet single-engine go-around parameters (no water methanol left) and refused to fly them. After the Delta pilot group agreed to fly them, Delta picked up the order and the rest is history - Eastern out of business and Delta a huge airline.

[@robinhoodtheorem]

seems to me that performing a loop in combat is probably a good way to get shot down.

[@bensdadfrank]

How did we train that many men, to fly sophisticated machines, so quickly.

[@skm9420]

They weren't sniveling children

[@SabraStiehl]

Sometime during the next few generations some fighters will have a pilot or pilots and some will not. In 2012 the USAF trained more computer console pilots than those who would actually strap their butt into a cockpit. Later, not only will pilots be absent from the cockpit, they will be absent from the monitor console. Over 50 counties are working on drones that once launched will behave automatically to a landing (or not). The aerial battlefield is getting too dangerous for people to be there.

[@stephenmiller5004]

No doubt this is a phenomenal plane, but somehow looks to my eye a little slow to react, perhaps a little cumbersome compared to a P51.... evolution!

[@richardlahan7068]

It had a top speed of 440 mph. About the same as a Mustang but not as maneuverable as a P-51.

[@wrh61]

@steffen19k Well negativity rules the net so I'm not too suprised at your comment...

[@SabraStiehl]

Boeing and Douglas were in a cat fight in the '50s and '60s, much like Boeing and Airbus are at present to see who can gain the largest share of the civilian airliner market. Douglas's DC-8, designed after Boeing's '707, exceeded Boeing's performance numbers about 5%, which forced Boeing back to the drawing board. I think the best story of that era was that the '747, a losing design in a competition for the USAF (Lockheed's C-5 won), came to dominate the long range large transport market.

[@rajpawar9343]

United States was great in making Turbo Super Chargers.

[@sosco22]

No details of how

[@MrShalako1]

...the Jug ain't that hard to fly. Especially if it's a 44-inch electric plane.

[@diamonddog257]

Jimmy got a job with Black Ops.

[@diamonddog257]

....With his mouth...I'm surprised if he made it past 10......

[@John0500]

Jimmy needs to chill in my opinion

[@AugustusLarch]

Snap rolls are not permitted? The entry into a spin starts with a snap roll. Did any one else see this contradiction?

[@Granit1973]

Performing snap roll can lead to unintentional spin. There is no contradiction.

[@AugustusLarch]

***** They are spinning the machine in this film and do an obvious snap roll to enter that spin. Watch it for yourself. My claim objectively stands

[@eddievhfan1984]

AugustusLarch You could theoretically snap roll it safely, but you'd have to be a pretty ballsy test pilot. For operational concerns, you wouldn't want to try doing that in combat if you could spin out easily.

[@Granit1973]

AugustusLarch you understand the difference between "intentional" and "unintentional" ?

[@AugustusLarch]

***** Watch at 15:40. If it is known that a spin causes a snap roll the snap roll is as intentional as a spin. It's the higher speed snap rolls that could knock the pilot silly. If they survived the first one they would never do it again.

[@SabraStiehl]

I'm not a fan of the decision Airbus made to modify the laws which restrict pilot control during a stall or upset condition. The accident where the French pilots screwed it up and killed everybody off the coast of Brazil several years ago was a case where this was likely a factor. As someone with many hours in Boeing airplanes ('727, '37, '57, '67), I like knowing I would have control during such a condition, though most of the first upsets the '707 experienced in the '50s and '60s were fatal.

[@davidwhite8633]

Sabra S There was something similar a few years ago off Borneo, too, an Indonesian airliner at about 39,000 in a CuNim. It was beyond the autopilot’s pay-grade so just switched itself off and in effect said to the pilots ‘ over to you’. Evidently it was beyond their’s as well , with the usual predictable results.

[@Mesmoros]

Jimmy, lol!

[@noonedude101]

I bet you a hundred thousand dollars they didn't take those precautions in combat.

[@Avilator189]

I want my kid to be like Jimmy

[@monsterzeroJr]

Achtung! Donnerbolz!

[@cjracer1000]

FIRST!!!!!!

[@saaamuka2011]

SENTA A PUA!

[@kkchongkk2]

KK