Flight 175 plane speed challenged

[beachnut]

Does anyone here have any ideas on how amateur pilots were able to maintain control of the planes at the speeds claimed let alone not have the planes fall apart in mid-flight?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

Added: September 21, 2007
From: pumpitout
Here is a clip confirming what Joseph Keith had already established, that flight 175 could not have possibly traveled anywhere near 500 MPH at 700ft altitude. Verified by Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori Bechtold.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_total__rept.pdf

The hijacked plane that hit the north tower was American Airlines, Flight 11, a 767-223ER, estimated by government sources to be carrying about 34,000 L (9000 gallons) of fuel, and flying at about 211 m/s (470 miles per hour) [7]. The second hijacked plane was United Airlines, Flight 175, a Boeing 767-222, estimated by government sources to be carrying about 31,000 L (8200 gallons) of fuel and traveling at about 265 m/s (590 miles per hour) [7]. The 767-200 series planes had an overall length of 48.5 m (159 ft 2 in), a wing span of 47.6 m (156 ft), a fuselage diameter of 5.3 m (17.5 ft), and a tail height of 15.8 m (52 ft).

How long did the planes on 9/11 speed past their maximum speed of 350KCAS?

I find it very troubling a researcher of your caliber never uses facts, like 350 KCAS. I find it disturbing you do not even understand what a KCAS is. I find it funny, you have no idea what question you should even ask.

You have no idea what a plane would do going faster than the max speed. I have gone the maximum speed of my aircraft and someone following me when faster than the speed of his aircraft! What happen. Gee some skin was peeled off and it was repaired.

On 9/11 the terrorist went too fast for how long?

10 to 20 seconds! Not long enough to do much damage to the planes.

How did they get to those speed so quick and why so short of a time going fast?

They pushed up the throttles and the engines, which are very powerful, over speed the aircraft in a few seconds. Then the planes hit something and were destroyed, so we will never know how much damage was due to over speeding the aircraft! Darn.

The truth movement always seems to drag up an idiot like joseph keith and he makes up bs better than the movement.

Please next time tell us the top speed of the plane in knots and mph. Like 350 KCAS and that is 397.7 mph. But you do know the plane can do .86 MACH and 513 KIAS (582 mph)? You should bring some facts to the table on flying next time when you attack things prove correct by events on 9/11 and you should talk to pilots and engineers before presenting such junk from 9/11 truth.

The terrorist flew the planes for 10 to 20 seconds way too fast; you saw it on 9/11, you saw the results. The truth movement is full of lies, the truth movement is unable to research real life and make rational statements. Sad

 

[R.Mackey]

Um...aren't we talking about speeds ranging from 500-600 mph at 700 ft ASL?

The speed of sound is 761 mph at sea level so I don't see how it is relevant.

Do you know how airfoils work?

Airfoils accelerate the airflow. That's how lift is produced. This happens on the wings and on the control surfaces.

If you're traveling at 400 MPH airspeed, you're good to go. There's no way the airflow will ever hit Mach 1.

If you're traveling at 600 MPH, you may be in trouble. Somewhere along the airfoil, the airflow may hit Mach 1, creating a normal shock. This increases drag and vibration, but more importantly will separate the flow. If it's a wing, you will lose a good chunk of lift and your ailerons will become useless. If it's in the tail, your elevators and stabilizers won't work much at all.

If you're traveling at 600 MPH at sea level, you're probably OK because you still have about 160 MPH of margin. If you're traveling at 30,000 feet, you have very little margin.

This is why the true top speed, control-limited, is higher at sea level than at altitude.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Do you know how airfoils work?

Airfoils accelerate the airflow. That's how lift is produced. This happens on the wings and on the control surfaces.

If you're traveling at 400 MPH airspeed, you're good to go. There's no way the airflow will ever hit Mach 1.

If you're traveling at 600 MPH, you may be in trouble. Somewhere along the airfoil, the airflow may hit Mach 1, creating a normal shock. This increases drag and vibration, but more importantly will separate the flow. If it's a wing, you will lose a good chunk of lift and your ailerons will become useless. If it's in the tail, your elevators and stabilizers won't work much at all.

If you're traveling at 600 MPH at sea level, you're probably OK because you still have about 160 MPH of margin. If you're traveling at 30,000 feet, you have very little margin.

This is why the true top speed, control-limited, is higher at sea level than at altitude.

No disagreement with your statement, it's just that the speed of UA175 by all accounts was less than 600 mph. So we can rule out supersonic effects as relevant to the difficulty of controlling the airplane.

 

[R.Mackey]

On that point we agree. I find nothing remarkable at all about the speed of UA175.

It's Mr. Zen Smack who says its impossible, not me!

 

[TjW]

The problem is not the Boeings; the problem is that this very high rate of speed makes it even more unlikely the plane was being piloted by an amateur, and is more evidence the planes were actually being piloted by autopilot or some kind of remote navigation system like Global Hawk. All of us agree the high speed increases the difficulty of hitting a target.

I don't agree. There's no correlation at all between the professional status of the pilot and the speed of the plane. Airplanes are easier to fly going fast than they are when flying slow.

The towers weren't going to jump out of the way at the last second. All that's needed to allow for high speed is enough space to line up. Then -- as in the AAL77 thread -- it's just a question of doing whatever is necessary to keep the target on a constant relative bearing. Pigeons were trained to perform this algorithm. Moths manage to perform this algorithm to intercept your porch light.

And if they miss, so what? Everyone on the plane, at least, dies. It's still been a successful terror attack. If they miss completely, they can come back for another attempt.

This argument is very similar to the one we had on another thread regarding Hani's alleged maneuver with AAL77. That plane was also accelerated to a very high rate of speed before impact. Why would these terrorists, who knew they were poor pilots, have chosen to accelerate at such extreme speeds into their targets, knowing that such a tactic increased the likelihood of a miss?

Probably because they weren't completely ignorant of physics. The kinetic energy of the impact goes up as the square of the velocity. Even a small speed increase can make a large difference in the impact.

Sure it is hypothetically possible that amateurs just got lucky three out of four times; just as it is hypothetically possible that War and Peace was composed not by Tolstoy, but by a monkey with a typewriter......

The more likely scenario is that the planes were piloted automatically, by people who wanted high-speed impacts to destroy as much evidence as possible of their nefarious deed.

As Apathoid showed, this is very unlikely.

My understanding is that at least one of the hijackers on each plane was a certificated pilot. Certificates earned while training to perform one particular mission, true, but certificated nevertheless. That their focus on training for their mission might be interpreted by those expecting a wider interest in all modes of flight as incompetence is not relevant.
They were not professional airline pilots, they were professional suicide pilots.

I would not expect those two groups to overlap.

 

[beachnut]

Um...aren't we talking about speeds ranging from 500-600 mph at 700 ft ASL?

The speed of sound is 761 mph at sea level so I don't see how it is relevant.

supersonic airflow over an aircraft can happen before the plane goes supersonic, you should know when since you are speaking up on a topic you are messing up

flight 175 was going pretty fast, the biggest problem would be some high speed buffet and lost control, which could have some tuck under effect and the plane going straight in a high speed stall into the wtc at 590 mph

but 175 was approaching the speed where supersonic flows could start; what do you think

but as you said, the planes on 9/11 did not have any trouble with speed

 

[beachnut]

The problem is not the Boeings; the problem is that this very high rate of speed makes it even more unlikely the plane was being piloted by an amateur, and is more evidence the planes were actually being piloted by autopilot or some kind of remote navigation system like Global Hawk. All of us agree the high speed increases the difficulty of hitting a target.

This argument is very similar to the one we had on another thread regarding Hani's alleged maneuver with AAL77. That plane was also accelerated to a very high rate of speed before impact. Why would these terrorists, who knew they were poor pilots, have chosen to accelerate at such extreme speeds into their targets, knowing that such a tactic increased the likelihood of a miss?

Sure it is hypothetically possible that amateurs just got lucky three out of four times; just as it is hypothetically possible that War and Peace was composed not by Tolstoy, but by a monkey with a typewriter......

The more likely scenario is that the planes were piloted automatically, by people who wanted high-speed impacts to destroy as much evidence as possible of their nefarious deed.

Global Hawk does not have the mass of the planes used and seen going into the WTC on 9/11. You are so wrong your lack of research is showing. Global Hawk is more like a glider than a high speed airliner.

Global Hawk, when you say Global Hawk, you prove you are a fraud just making up junk about 9/11.

 

[TjW]

Warmer air is less dense (= less drag), so that is not the issue. Also the speed of sound has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Nonetheless, the air pressure (and density) is higher at lower altitudes creating more drag which create more stress in the airframe. The air being more dense also causes the airplane to react more sensitively to pilot input making the airplane harder to control. High speed accentuates this. Also, there is usually more air turbulance at lower altitudes further increasing the difficulty of controlling the aircraft

My goodness gracious, the cherry crop should be harvested in no time at all this year.
You very conveniently snipped the part of my quote from A-Train's link. Here it is again:

The upper cruise speed is generally limited by the speed of sound. As the temperature decreases with altitude, so does the speed of sound.

Perhaps you'll be able to see it if it's in cherry red. Please recall that this is A-Train's referenced link, not mine.

 

[GregoryUrich]

My goodness gracious, the cherry crop should be harvested in no time at all this year.
You very conveniently snipped the part of my quote from A-Train's link. Here it is again:


Perhaps you'll be able to see it if it's in cherry red. Please recall that this is A-Train's referenced link, not mine.

I definitely didn't intend to misquote you. The editor did something strange with the nested quote. It happened again when I quoted you this time. The statement in red is correct, just not relevant.

It seems that most people agree that supersonic effects were unlikely to contribute to any difficulty controlling UAL175.

 

[beachnut]

Does anyone here have any ideas on how amateur pilots were able to maintain control of the planes at the speeds claimed let alone not have the planes fall apart in mid-flight?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

Added: September 21, 2007
From: pumpitout
Here is a clip confirming what Joseph Keith had already established, that flight 175 could not have possibly traveled anywhere near 500 MPH at 700ft altitude. Verified by Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori Bechtold.

Anyone can take the video and estimate the speed of flight 175, you should try doing some real work one day.

Dumb video! Joseph Keith says the plane "maxes out at 330 mph"? WRONG the max speed is 350 KCAS or 397.7 mph. And then he says the plane will shake apart at "220 mph". Nope, not even close. ​

I have a few thousand hours flying Boeing jets since 1976. I find this video to be an idiotic piece on flying. Funny stuff. Just junk by idiots. Got any facts, or is this the best you can do? ​

When you pick an expert, pick someone who is not an idiot insane dolt. Please try to find some facts and stop showing us how incompetent the 9/11 truth movement is. ​

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The more likely scenario is that the planes were piloted automatically, by people who wanted high-speed impacts to destroy as much evidence as possible of their nefarious deed.

/foreheadsmack

And burning it for an hour at 1800 degrees and then dropping a 500,000 ton office tower on it couldn't possibly have done that?

 

[jhunter1163]

Once again we have a Twoofer who can't distinguish between "cannot fly that fast" and "should not be/is not recommended to be/is unsafe to be flown that fast". Given their mission, passenger comfort and safety was obviously a very low priority.

I've heard that pretty much any Boeing plane except a 747 can do a barrel roll, but such a maneuver would result in the instant firing of the entire flight crew.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

On that point we agree. I find nothing remarkable at all about the speed of UA175.

It's Mr. Zen Smack who says its impossible, not me!

Actually Mr. Zen Smack is just asking because it sounds like Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori Bechtold are the ones in the phone calls claiming it's not possible.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Once again we have a Twoofer who can't distinguish between "cannot fly that fast" and "should not be/is not recommended to be/is unsafe to be flown that fast". Given their mission, passenger comfort and safety was obviously a very low priority.

I've heard that pretty much any Boeing plane except a 747 can do a barrel roll, but such a maneuver would result in the instant firing of the entire flight crew.

Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori Bechtold are twoofers?

wow

 

[jhunter1163]

I doubt that a spokeswoman has any serious engineering credentials. If she did, she'd be an engineer. As for the engineer, as the other posters have noted, she may be correct for straight-and-level flight; but coming out of a power dive produces much higher speeds.

 

[leftysergeant]

I think that this thread was started so that any future discussioin would be done here, rather than in the thread in which I sourced the start of the rumor to the crank caller Jeff, aka Plaguepuppy. The apparent intent is to show that the discussion was started by someone capable of rational thought.

It does not escape me how ironic it is that he would attempt to do so by starting a thread under his own name making the assertion.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

I think that this thread was started so that any future discussioin would be done here, rather than in the thread in which I sourced the start of the rumor to the crank caller Jeff, aka Plaguepuppy. The apparent intent is to show that the discussion was started by someone capable of rational thought.

It does not escape me how ironic it is that he would attempt to do so by starting a thread under his own name making the assertion.

After I watched the video I did a search for "Speed", "175" and a couple other things and I couldn't find anything on this specific subject. I then noticed that the video was a fairly new post so I started this thread. Maybe I should have searched on "Jeff Hill moonbat twoofer" but I forgot to consider the content of most JREF so-called debunking threads aren't really about facts.

My bad.

 

[R.Mackey]

Actually Mr. Zen Smack is just asking because it sounds like Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori Bechtold are the ones in the phone calls claiming it's not possible.

"Sounds like" to you. Not to me.

Again, you cannot produce a single Boeing engineer who says the ~570 MPH impact speed of Flight 175 was impossible. Not one.

On the off-chance that one arrives, I know many Boeing engineers who will set them straight ricky-tick.

 

[Corsair 115]

Nonetheless, the air pressure (and density) is higher at lower altitudes creating more drag which create more stress in the airframe. The air being more dense also causes the airplane to react more sensitively to pilot input making the airplane harder to control. High speed accentuates this. Also, there is usually more air turbulance at lower altitudes further increasing the difficulty of controlling the aircraft

On the other hand, passenger aircraft, and most aircraft in general, are designed to be stable. Also, there is inertia. A big aircraft is going to have more of it. That means snapping a big aircraft into a bank is not easy, since you've got the lateral stability of the aircraft resisting the bank input plus you've got the inertia of the aircraft resisting the bank input.

As for low altitude airspeeds, given that piston-engined aircraft can top 400 miles per hour at minimal altitude, I don't see how a jet-engined aircraft with a lot more power available to it would have a problem.

 

[TjW]

I definitely didn't intend to misquote you. The editor did something strange with the nested quote. It happened again when I quoted you this time. The statement in red is correct, just not relevant.

It seems that most people agree that supersonic effects were unlikely to contribute to any difficulty controlling UAL175.

So what would you expect to cause problems? Flutter? Generally, denser air contributes to damping, making flutter less likely at lower altitudes.

A gust? It was early morning on a clear, calm day. You can get near-ideal weather if you're willing to wait for it. There would be very little convection early in the morning.