JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,092
If you want the monkeys to dance, you have to give them bananas!
Flight 175 plane speed challenged
- Thread starter ZENSMACK89
- Start date
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
I would assume McDonnell Douglas went back and revised their computer simulation software in light of this real-world evidence...
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Wow, that was some flying.
Good analysis. All of the new fighters have a fuselage designed to produce lift.
I'd say he was in a perfect attitude to allow the fuselage to produce enough lift combined with enough slab control to counteract the roll.
He did everything right to include not slowing down very much. That landing was over the tire speed limit for both the mains and the nose tire particularly.
That was some good piloting skill combined with incredible luck!
AMTMAN
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 579
Yes it hade it back safely. Although if I remember correctly it was eventually written off.
Last edited:
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
I remember watching this on TV a while back. It shows a load stress test on a 777 wing.
It sure can take quite a bit of deflection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
It sure can take quite a bit of deflection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
Belz...
Fiend God
That's the most amazing thing I've seen in a long time!!!!
I just love those F-15s.
USAFMXOfficer
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 73
Flight 175 speed absolutely possible
New debunker here, USAF Lt Colonel with 22 years experience in the aircraft maintenance area. I have a BS in Aerospace Engineering and 2 Master's - One in Aeronautical Science and one in Strategic Studies.
I've been to YouTube and posted a few comments on the Flight 175 Impossible Speed video negative of pumpitout's theories and the method he used to gather information. Of course my comments were deleted and I was summarily blocked from further posting there, a well-known tactic of the CTists.
Getting a Boeing PR person and a random Boeing engineer to say “that sounds reasonable” hardly counts as proof. I think I can help debunk this “proof” using only public sources.
The airplane is flight-tested and certified to be safe (flutter-free, able to carry gust loads, controllable, etc.) up to Vd (the maximum dive speed). This speed may be found in the type certification documents that are filed with the FAA.. For the 767-200 at Sea Level, this speed can be found in Type Certificate # A1NM, available from the FAA at the follwing web site: <rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/15302e51a401f11a8625718b00658962/$FILE/A1NM.pdf>.
If you want to find it yourself, just do a Google search for “Type certificate A1NM Vd”. This document clearly states that the Vd for a 767-200 is 420KCAS (knots calibrated airspeed). This is the equivalent of 420*1.1516 = 484 mph (calibrated).
At sea level on a standard day, this would also be the true airspeed. As it is, the corrections are small. Now you need to compensate for compressibility to convert to equivalent airspeed. At sea level on a standard day, calibrated airspeed and equivalent airspeed are equal. At 700ft and 420KCAS, we’ll have a downward correction about one knot – say 419KEAS.
Next we correct to true airspeed. Assuming a standard day, the air density at 700 feet is 97.9806% of that at Sea Level. V = Ve /(.979806)^.5 = 419 / 1.01025 = 423.3 knots. Now lets convert to mph. 423.3*1.1516 = 487.5 mph (true).
Remember, the airplane has actually been flight-tested at various altitudes (all the way down to near-sea-level) to establish these values, and in fact, it is standard industry practice to go a bit faster during the flight test and set these Vd values slightly to the conservative side. Consequently, the 767 was flight-tested to about 500mph in a dive near sea-level.
Flight 175 went from 31,000 feet to 800 feet in approximately 9 minutes, attaining a maximum 10,000 fpm dive rate during this maneuver. The aircraft would absolutely have built up enough speed to attain ~500 mph+ during the run in to the WTC.
Next time they ask a Boeing Engineer they need to phrase the question correctly: "Could a 767-200, after diving from 31,000 feet at 10,000 fpm, attain a groundspeed of 500+ mph at 800 feet?"
New debunker here, USAF Lt Colonel with 22 years experience in the aircraft maintenance area. I have a BS in Aerospace Engineering and 2 Master's - One in Aeronautical Science and one in Strategic Studies.
I've been to YouTube and posted a few comments on the Flight 175 Impossible Speed video negative of pumpitout's theories and the method he used to gather information. Of course my comments were deleted and I was summarily blocked from further posting there, a well-known tactic of the CTists.
Getting a Boeing PR person and a random Boeing engineer to say “that sounds reasonable” hardly counts as proof. I think I can help debunk this “proof” using only public sources.
The airplane is flight-tested and certified to be safe (flutter-free, able to carry gust loads, controllable, etc.) up to Vd (the maximum dive speed). This speed may be found in the type certification documents that are filed with the FAA.. For the 767-200 at Sea Level, this speed can be found in Type Certificate # A1NM, available from the FAA at the follwing web site: <rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/15302e51a401f11a8625718b00658962/$FILE/A1NM.pdf>.
If you want to find it yourself, just do a Google search for “Type certificate A1NM Vd”. This document clearly states that the Vd for a 767-200 is 420KCAS (knots calibrated airspeed). This is the equivalent of 420*1.1516 = 484 mph (calibrated).
At sea level on a standard day, this would also be the true airspeed. As it is, the corrections are small. Now you need to compensate for compressibility to convert to equivalent airspeed. At sea level on a standard day, calibrated airspeed and equivalent airspeed are equal. At 700ft and 420KCAS, we’ll have a downward correction about one knot – say 419KEAS.
Next we correct to true airspeed. Assuming a standard day, the air density at 700 feet is 97.9806% of that at Sea Level. V = Ve /(.979806)^.5 = 419 / 1.01025 = 423.3 knots. Now lets convert to mph. 423.3*1.1516 = 487.5 mph (true).
Remember, the airplane has actually been flight-tested at various altitudes (all the way down to near-sea-level) to establish these values, and in fact, it is standard industry practice to go a bit faster during the flight test and set these Vd values slightly to the conservative side. Consequently, the 767 was flight-tested to about 500mph in a dive near sea-level.
Flight 175 went from 31,000 feet to 800 feet in approximately 9 minutes, attaining a maximum 10,000 fpm dive rate during this maneuver. The aircraft would absolutely have built up enough speed to attain ~500 mph+ during the run in to the WTC.
Next time they ask a Boeing Engineer they need to phrase the question correctly: "Could a 767-200, after diving from 31,000 feet at 10,000 fpm, attain a groundspeed of 500+ mph at 800 feet?"
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,092
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Welcome, USAFMXOfficer!
USAFMXOfficerGreat info, but I'm afraid that the OP has given up on his argument...
ZENSMACK89
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,068
Welcome and thanks for your input. You said credentials are very impressive. That’s very impressive
Boeing is the company who manufactures the planes and the phone calls and responses are employees of Boeing. No one was twisting their arm and "got them" to do anything. It was their opinion. What you are offering is your opinion. Now here is the opinion of someone who actually flew the plane said to have crashed into the tower...
RUSS WITTENBERG: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11... Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's... I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."
From your source....
Airspeed Limits: VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VFC = 390 KCAS to 17,600 ft/382 KCAS at 23,000 ft/.87M above 26,000 ft, linear variation
between these points.
VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VLE = 270 KCAS/.82M
VLO = 270 KCAS/.82M
The most conservative estimate put up by any official version to date is 437 knots. And that is at below the 85th floor or 1045 feet not 23,000 feet. Fema estimated as high as 514 knots. Still even so the most conservative estimate is still above the top speed in your link.
You're still short of the official version speed.
Still below the official version speed and not tested by an amateur pilot.
And claimed to have all been done by an amateur pilot. How does this maneuver at this speed performed by an amateur pilot lend credibility to the official version?
Yes but it's hard to get that all in before they hang-up on you.
Now what you are claiming is the speeds said in the official versions are at least at the brink if not over and this was all done by an amatuer pilot.
Thank you for your opinion.
Last edited:
ZENSMACK89
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,068
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/25/attack/main501989.shtml
The second plane was flying so fast that it was in danger of breaking up in the air as it approached the south tower, Boeing spokeswoman Liz Verdier told the Times.
“These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,” Verdier said. “It's off the chart.”
The second plane was flying so fast that it was in danger of breaking up in the air as it approached the south tower, Boeing spokeswoman Liz Verdier told the Times.
“These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,” Verdier said. “It's off the chart.”
lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
Obvious appeal to authority fallacy noted. These maneuvers were not witnessed so what does he base his claim on? Russ completely ignores the fact that there were 2 commercial certified pilots in the group that would be able to instruct the other 2 and how to fly and navigate.
Those are the design speed limits. To claim that the aircraft would fall apart the second it exceeded those speeds is baseless.
This is based on the "airplanes are incredibly hard to fly" fallacy. Landing an airplane is hard. Flying one is not. It would be easier for an amateur pilot to pull those maneuvers since they don't have years of training and experience limiting them to the published maximums.
So, please explain how Matt Lauer was able to take off and land a 777 with zero flight training. See here. Don't try the "well that's a simulator" argument.
CurtC
Illuminator
The NERVE! Those terrorists were flying the plane at an unsafe speed !!!eleven!1! What were they thinking?!?1?
Some people just don't know when to quit.
Zenny, did the 777 wing stress example go completely over your head? Do you understand the concept of safety factors? Aren't you glad that Boeing builds good airplanes?
"On April 4, 1979, a Boeing 727-31 (tail number N840TW) operating as TWA Flight 841 took off from JFK International Airport, New York City en route to Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport. Over Saginaw, Michigan, while the plane was cruising at 39,000 feet, its #7 slat extended, initiating a sharp roll to the right. The roll continued despite the corrective measures taken by the autopilot and the human pilot. The aircraft went into a spiral dive, losing about 34,000 feet in 63 seconds. (For comparison, a normal rate of descent for an airliner would be 1800 feet per minute). During the course of the dive, the plane rolled through 360 degrees twice, and crossed the Mach limit for the 727 airframe. It was later estimated from the flight data recorder that the plane was momentarily supersonic. . Control was regained at about 5,000 feet, following the #7 slat being torn off from the aircraft and symmetry of lift being re-established. The plane suffered substantial structural damage, but made an emergency landing at Detroit, Michigan without further trouble. No fatalities occurred among the 82 passengers and seven crew members. Eight passengers reported minor injuries relating to high G forces.
The NTSB investigated the incident and established after eliminating all individual and combined sources of mechanical failure, that the extension of the slats was due to the flight crew manipulating the flap/slat controls in an inappropriate manner.
The crew, Capt. Harvey "Hoot" Gibson, first officer Jess Kennedy, and flight engineer Garry Banks, denied that their actions had been the cause.
At no time prior to the incident did I take any action within the cockpit either intentionally or inadvertently, that would have caused the extension of the leading edge slats or trailing edge flaps. Nor did I observe any other crew member take any action within the cockpit, either intentional or inadvertent, which would have caused the extension.
—Capt. Gibson, April 12, 1979
The crew suggested instead that an actuator on the #7 slat had failed. The NTSB rejected this as improbable, but the crew claimed that such failures had happened on other 727s prior and subsequent to this incident.
The aircraft was repaired and returned to service in May 1979.
"
Wiki article on TWA 841.
Comments Zenny?
Yes Zen, the terrorist pushed the throttles to the firewall, and the planes in just a few seconds exceeded normal flying speed, but gee, 10 to 20 seconds above the safe speeds and they hit buildings.
So now you agree your op is bs and you know the planes really did fly over the safe speed for a few seconds on 9/11. So?
Next. What is your point? Every pilot knows the plane will go faster than the speed limit, gee, I bet you exceed the speed limit when you drive. What does your failed OP mean in the big picture?
Wake up truther, the 767/757 can as seen on 9/11 go over 590 mph! Making your OP junk. Good job.
So with a top dive speed of 477.27 mph, which was exceeded on 9/11, what is your point?
BTW, flight 77 was officially going over 460 KIAS, that is over 522 mph. How did 77 go that fast?
Who knows how hard it was to control the planes, the idiots flying are dead! They could have been aiming somewhere else. 77 almost hit the ground, maybe the controls were make the planes dive. They do in the planes I flew when I was sitting on the limit, the top speed. 175 looked like it was diving more than the pilot wanted, and was about to miss the building. I think 175 terrorist pilot was aiming at the center a little higher, could the high speed make the plane dive and the control less responsive, or did he pull up and we are seeing a high speed stall impact? \\
Or did the terrorist just push up the throttles and hit the buildings at a high speed. Why is 9/11 truth unable to find a single fact to back up what they are trying to say?
Last edited:
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
you know even if the airplanes were to break up a second or two before hitting the towers, the momentun would have still caused the airplane pieces and all it's mass to crash into the building.
It's not like the planes would have come apart and fall straight down.
Just goes to show how little CTists understand physics.
As far as flying difficulties goes. The Airliner pilots did the hard work. They took off. All the amatures had to do was aim the planes at a large building. How hard is that?
It's not like the planes would have come apart and fall straight down.
Just goes to show how little CTists understand physics.
As far as flying difficulties goes. The Airliner pilots did the hard work. They took off. All the amatures had to do was aim the planes at a large building. How hard is that?
Last edited: