Alien Flying Saucer?
Well, here we are finally. This should have been done at least a year ago. I know I’m not the first who has tried, but maybe this will be more successful than previous efforts.
Background - Basic Aerodynamics regarding aircraft turns
(Simplified Version) – Fixed wing aircraft must bank and laterally accelerate (pull G’s) in order to turn. The angle of bank and G’s are directly related for level turns. The rate of turn (rapidity of heading change) is directly related to angle of bank, acceleration (G’s), true airspeed, air density, winds, and sun spots. The .pdf reference below has examples of bank angles and the related G for level turns. This chart is applicable to all fixed wing aircraft from Piper J-3’s to B-747’s to F-16’s. For example, a 60 degree angle of bank turn requires 2 G’s for a level turn. If more than 2 G’s are applied the aircraft will climb, less than 2 G’s the aircraft will descend. In order to apply more G to increase the rate of turn the bank angle must correspondingly be increased in order for the aircraft to maintain a level turn. The reverse is also true. More bank requires more G to maintain level flight.
Bank Angles and Large Aircraft – Passenger or Cargo carrying aircraft normally do not exceed 30-35 degrees of bank. 40-45 degrees of bank are very steep and avoided. 60 degrees of bank or more virtually never happens except during flight tests and accidents. The aircraft is capable of these steep bank angles, but it is just normally never done simply because it usually results in exceeding the G limit for G Category Aircraft.
Large Aircraft Roll Rates – Since we don’t know the type of aircraft used for this maneuver, we don’t know the rate of roll for it. While small fighter aircraft can roll very rapidly, larger aircraft with large wing surface area can not roll this rapidly to establish a bank angle. Therefore, I will add a 1 second roll in time to achieve 60 degrees of bank or greater. Of course, the aircraft turns slightly during the roll in, but this heading change is offset by the fact that turn radius is not factored into the heading change required in the calculator and/or charts I’ll be using.
Premise/Assumptions – A large aircraft of some type flew a flight path that passed over Edward Paik’s business at S. Ode St/Columbia Pike then approximately over the Navy Annex to a position North of the Citgo Service Station at 898 S. Joyce St. then to the known impact point at the Pentagon. None of the witnesses interviewed by CIT (namely Paik, Lagasse, Brooks, or Turcois) described a turn of any type. There are additional recent witnesses CIT claims witnessed this Northern Flight Path, but none describe an aircraft in a turn, most importantly the dramatic turn require for this maneuver.
Recently, corresponding to discussions here, CIT has used a hostile (to them) witness, Mike Walters, a USA Today Reporter, who witnessed and supports the accepted flight path as a witness of a “pivot” and a “graceful bank” on the approach. CIT has drawn a digital map and used this detail to support a North of Citgo approach. Thanks guy, that’s what got my attention!
Witness Turcois described a pullup at Washington Ave to avoid a road sign gantry and CIT describes this as the pullup to fly over the impact point and over the building in order to deceive onlookers.
Aircraft Speed – Witnesses have stated that the aircraft was traveling very fast. CIT has advocated a fast speed, as well, in order for the flyover to deceive onlookers. The actual estimated precise speed varies with the source, but I have used a speed of 780 fps = 462 KTS = 532 MPH as the speed for these calculations.
Tools Used – Stubby yellow pencil and paper, Scientific Calculator, an online calculator (listed below), and an online chart (listed below). The calculator and chart agree on the numbers calculated. Google Earth was used for distance calculations and Garmin City Navigator Version 2008 was used for heading calculations.
The scenarios –
In order for the aircraft to fly without turning (no turn visible to Mr. Paik) from over Edward Paik’s business to over the Navy Annex to North of Citgo (a position displayed by CIT on digital maps) the course would be ~ 057 Degrees True. A direct course from a position abeam the Citgo Station to the impact point would be ~ 077 Degrees True. (I DID NOT account for turn radius in required heading calculations as it is unnecessary to do so and makes the problem for CIT’s theory even worse with turn radius factored in) (I drew a direct line just like they do.) Note that the heading change required using this method is 20 degrees +.
532 MPH TAS
60 Degree Bank Angle
2 G’s
10979.3 Turn Radius
20 Degrees of turn/4.1 Degrees per second Rate of Turn = 4.9 Seconds + 1 second roll in =
5.9 seconds REQUIRED.
1788.76’ Distance to Impact Point/780 fps =
2.3 Seconds to Impact Point.
*Conclusion – The aircraft can not make the turn and would pass to the north of the Pentagon, not over the impact point.
Ok, let’s increase the bank and pull more G’s.
532 MPH TAS
71 Degree Bank Angle
3.1 G’s (Beyond G Category G Limit)
6553.3 Turn Radius
20 Degrees of turn/6.8 Degrees per second Rate of Turn = 2.9 Seconds + 1 second roll in =
3.9 seconds REQUIRED.
1788.76’ Distance to Impact Point/780 fps =
2.3 Seconds to Impact Point.
*Conclusion – The aircraft can not make the turn and would pass several hundred feet north of the impact point perhaps North of the building once plotted.
Increase the bank, more G’s.
532 MPH TAS
75 Degree Bank Angle
3.9 G’s (Well past G Category G Limit)
5102.8 Turn Radius
20 Degrees of turn/8.7Degrees per second Rate of Turn = 2.2 Seconds + 1 second roll in =
3.2 seconds REQUIRED.
1788.76’ Distance to Impact Point/780 fps =
2.3 Seconds to Impact Point.
Conclusion – The aircraft still can not make this turn and would pass several hundred feet north of the impact point.
More bank, more G.
532 MPH TAS
84 Degree Bank Angle
9.5 G’s (Anyone think the aircraft will stay together)
2010.6 Turn Radius
20 Degrees of turn/22.2 Degrees per second Rate of Turn = .09 Seconds + 1 second roll in =
1.9 seconds REQUIRED.
1788.76’ Distance to Impact Point/780 fps =
2.3 Seconds to Impact Point.
Ah, we can make the turn in 84 Degrees of Bank at 9.5 G’s all the way to the impact point. Oops, we need time to roll out and pull up.
We need approximately another second to do that. It doesn't work.
Questions – How did the low aircraft wing avoid the light poles and signs along Washington Blvd. during these horrendous turns? How can we roll out and climb to pass over the impact point even with 9.5 G’s with no time to roll out and climb?
WAIT JUST A MINUTE
The aircraft did not crash into the impact point; it pulled up at the highway. Wow, that’s ~1086’ away from the position abeam the Citgo or 1.4 seconds to fly AND turn 20 Degrees. Since the aircraft needs to be on heading at this point, the turn must be complete or nearly complete by this time. Folks, Beachnut and I both do not believe that a 757 or any other large aircraft with a commensurate wing surface area has the roll authority to roll in and roll out of enough bank angle required to even establish this kind of turn in 1.4 seconds. An aircraft can not turn at a consistent turn rate until it reaches a bank angle with the commensurate G applied. In this case, we don’t believe the aircraft can even establish enough bank before a roll out is required to pull the vertical G’s necessary to climb. I don’t think an F-16 at 80-90 degrees of bank and 9+ G’s could do this. In fact, I don’t believe an F-22 could do it either.
It’s so stupid it can not be calculated….. Alien flying saucer anyone?
The CIT north of Citgo approach path scenario is a sad joke just as it’s always been…..
The witnesses are mistaken because this event as imagined DID NOT HAPPEN and it is aerodynamically proven to be impossible to accomplish by anything other than an alien flying saucer.
http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html
http://www.tscm.com/maneuver.pdf
