• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Going Down

leftysergeant said:
How I wish they had had digital photography during WWII. Talked to an old guy over the weekend who showed me a picture of his B-24 with one engine that failed because it picked up a load of straw about ten miles before he reached Ploesti. Now THAT is low and fast with a big aircraft.
Click to expand...

Slayhamlet said:
What's a straw man argument?
Click to expand...

I have since edited it to give some context.
 
Hasn't got anything to do with ground effect, but more so to do with aircraft capabilities and US response to a hijacking.

The case of the near hijacking of Fed Ex Fl. 705.

A disgruntled employee tried to hijack the DC-10. The pilot put the aircraft into a dive, almost rolled it onto its back, banked at extreme angles, flew it faster than it had been flown before (above Mach 0.8). Yet, it didn't crash. So much for commercial airliners can't do extreme manouvers.

Oh and the ATC were very aware of the situation and they had an attempted hijacking. At one stage they weren't sure if the hijacking was successful. Was an armada of F-16's scrambled? No.

The hijacker has stated his intent to commit suicide with the plane. Reports state that he intended to crash it into Fed Ex Headquaters.

This was all in 1994.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Who says Kiwi's can't fly. :)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=989_1174264216
Click to expand...


We can't fly anymore :(

I heard a story once of 75 Squadron doing Anti-shipping exercises in the Sea of Japan. The Kiwi pilots consistently scored kills because they'd fly on the deck along the troughs in the waves, so low that they were below the horizon until they were literally a a few hundred feet from the ship. Then they'd pop up, "launch", and vanish again.

Assuming that "sea level" is given as the midway point between the trough and crest, part of their aircraft was technically below sea level.

-Gumboot

ETA:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=201_1174847889 :D My favourite aircraft of all time.
 
Last edited:
I didn't get a good look at either of the aircraft in those videos.

The first...was that a Harrier?

The second, was that a MiG-17? MiG-15?
 
TriskettheKid said:
I didn't get a good look at either of the aircraft in those videos.

The first...was that a Harrier?

The second, was that a MiG-17? MiG-15?
Click to expand...

I believe the first one was a Harrier, but I'm not certain. If not, it was a Mirage F-1. The second was a Bae Lightening. The third was an A-10.
 
Reheat said:
I believe the first one was a Harrier, but I'm not certain. If not, it was a Mirage F-1. The second was a Bae Lightening. The third was an A-10.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the third video was a no-brainer.

I grew up just north of Philadelphia, and my house was routinely overflown by aircraft coming from the Naval Air Station Willow Grove. Seeing 2-4 A-10s in the air was a common and almost daily sight.

But I'm not so sure about the first video. The first really did look like a Harrier. The Mirage has a fuselage that's relatively the same size from cockpit to engine nozzles, yet that's not what I saw in the video (admittedly, the video was low quality). That and the engine intakes appeared rounded, which would better fit the Harrier.
 
The Jaguar, eh? Nice.

Not a huge fan of the jets, though. Give me a P-51D, P-38L, Bf-109, Spitfire Mk. IV, Fw 190, or an F4U, and I'd be happy.

Jets, while magnificent machines, just don't seem to capture the same beauty.
 
I think some jets can be really really beautiful.

The Avro Vulcan for instance:

vulcan3.jpg



Hawker Hunters:
hawker-hunter-mk58a.jpg


It depends on the jet...
 
I got to walk under a Vulcan which is on loan to the SASC Museum in Ashland, Nebraska. Those things are HUGE! (there's a B-1 in the Hanger too. :))
 
I agree that the Hawker Hunter is a beautiful aircraft. I've always admired it's plan view from above.

I remind me of an F-105. That's another beautiful aircraft in plan view from above. I will never lose the mental image of one pulling off from a bomb attack in SEA with vapor trails coming off the wings. Beautiful aircraft.
 
TriskettheKid said:
The Jaguar, eh? Nice.

Not a huge fan of the jets, though. Give me a P-51D, P-38L, Bf-109, Spitfire Mk. IV, Fw 190, or an F4U, and I'd be happy.

Jets, while magnificent machines, just don't seem to capture the same beauty.
Click to expand...
... do they have burners?
t38up1.jpg

//burners.. now//
 
beachnut said:
As you can see, the expert pilots fly very straight. The flight of 77 was crap. He varied the bank and pitch in a non pilot way. But a non pilot idiot could fly and hit buildings as done on 9/11 with ZERO training. You should research this, many people have put in new pilots in the exact simulators, which are harder to fly than the real plane, and hit buildings the first time.

Turbulence? What time was the impact? You know, on 9/11 was not a big day for turbulence. And the terrorist on 77 came in at high speed and a high angle. Normal landing angles are 2.5 to 3 degrees; 77 came in at 4 to 6 degrees, not level, never at the same precise pitch for more than a second, and his bank angle was floating around like a new pilot who was not interested in flying. It seemed he was only trying to hit the biggest office building around. Bet he could not find the White house, it is too small. You have failed to bring facts, are you unable to find facts on 9/11?

The flying you saw on 9/11 was not the best, it was inexperience pilot at best. You do not understand a bad flight, bad flying looks okay from the ground, but sucks if you are in the plane. These pilots lacked the experience to do even simple turns like you are use to.

In my 34 years of flying I know anyone could fly the way the terrorist did, and without prior flight training. I have trained new pilots in 300,000 pound aircraft. You are not correct, there was no precision at all you have failed to do research; you have failed to get the minimum knowledge on flying. Total failure.
Click to expand...

Would you agree that most pilots after take off turn the auto pilot on leading to the straight path you claim?

Second, he couldn't find the White House but at altitude and several hundred miles away he can find the Pentagon?

Anyone could flown like he did without training? ********. You are complete ball of contradictions. The pilots lacked the experience to do even simple turns but perform one beautifully over the Pentagon area. Facts? You just make **** up don't you and state them as fact?

No precision? How can you reconcile this with the flight path of 77 and the debris left behind by this lack of precision? Considering birds can punch holes through wings, this guy had great precision to run through light poles and keep the plane level enough and off the deck to hit the bottom floor after clipping a fence and trailer as well.

Why do you think this amateur pilot decided to take the most difficult route (low altitude through light poles, fences, and trailers) to his target against a newly renovated part of the building instead of slamming it into the roof area?

So simulators are now harder to fly than the real thing? ROFLMAO. That is one of the most comical statements I've ever heard. I would have thought the fear of death in the real thing might be a little more difficult to deal with along with the mechanical unknowns, atmospheric conditions, and the other planes in the air.
 
CHF said:
For how long did Flight 77 fly "a few feet off the deck?"
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should do the research. Not only that, fly the beast through several light poles, a trailer, and a fence and then hit the target without clipping the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom