Ground Effect

[AZCat]

Trust me, 30 degree pitch down in a FSX is the same as 30 degree pitch down in a professional Flight Simulator. No difference. Other than force feedback.

And it's not harder to do than a 270 degree diving turn.

Lets get that straight.

Your argument is a red herring, surprise, red herring on JREF? No way, get out of here.

You still think FSX is the same as a flight simulator, other than force feedback? Don't make me tell you about the cardboard axe!

[beachnut]

You my friend are an example of abject blind ignorance.

Thank you so much for the laughs, but i gotta go to bed now. This is going to amuse me and my buddies for a long time.

Thank you! :)

Good night dummy.
I have thousands of hours in heavy jets and I agree, I am ignorant of how someone can have such nutty ideas on flying.

The toughest thing in flying is descents and planning them. Hani screwed up, a simple turn saved his bacon. We could argue the complexity of turns vs. descents, but Hani proves you wrong! He chose a turn because he messed up the harder (for him) descent with poor planning. The simple turn (for him) helped him loose the altitude he failed to plan for because the plane will not loose altitude if you point it at the ground it just goes too fast! You do not understand flying now; when do you expect to learn more?

[Zlaya]

Roffle! Two things which come to mind:

1) Even the most advanced flight simulator software on a PC isn't even close to accurately recreating all the aerodynamics of real flight. That is, after all, why they have those multi-million dollar flight simulators for training airline pilots. If PC software was that realistic, they'd be using that and not the multi-million dollar simulators (it's save the airlines a ton of money in pilot training).

2) PC software cannot recreate the physical effects of flight. This is a very important point. In a PC sim, you can slam the stick foward and you won't feel al thing. You can haul back on the stick and you won't feel a thing.

Now do those three same things in a real aircraft. Slam that stick forward and you'll be floating in your straps as the negative G's throw you out of the seat and push the blood to your head. Haul back on the stick hard and the positive G's will crush you into your seat and push the blood from your head. You are seriously underestimating the physical effects on the pilot from hard and sudden control inputs.

None of which qualifies as hard maneuvering, does it? That's all well within the normal flight operations of an aircraft.

I'll ask again: how many hours in a real simulator have you got? Have you ever flown up front in the cockpit of a jet during a flight?


By the way, are you going to refute the material I posted from the web site detailing the operations of the 757? So far you've ignored it and have instead preferred to focus on being belligerent. Belligerence may gain you points elsewhere, but I think you'll find the folks here are persuaded by data and evidence, not belligerence.

Are you still seriously sitting there, debating in favor if a claim that somehow that turn was easier and more logical as move, than simply diving into the pentagon?

I'm not going to bother anymore, you all rely on fallacies, such as plea to authority. I don't know what i'm talking about, and all you all are experts right?

If you have any honest to goodness flight experience, you could never say that Hanjours maneuver made sense, considering the fact that a dive would be quicker, easier to execute and much more devastating.

Get out of here.

[Zlaya]

I am ignorant of how someone can have such nutty ideas on flying.

For someone with such godly knowledge of flying, you sure sound illogical and ignorant.

Good job.

[funk de fino]

I'm not sure what i lied about. I'm the one who says that a dive is easier to execute than a turn.

Some disagree.

I call them nuts.

Are you nuts too?


My missus thinks I'm nuts. I know more about aircraft than you though, and it is you who is making stupid nuts claims about flying and aircraft.

1. How do you initiate a dive in an aircraft?
2. How do you initiate a bank in an aircraft?

Please tell us what you use trim for in your AC Sim

[LashL]

Trust me


No.


I'm a skeptic, you'll have to show me. Oh, and you'll have to do so only after divesting yourself of all the fallacies that you've tried to peddle here in the interim.

Why on earth should I "trust you" as a random internet poster who has not demonstrated any history or any evidence whatsoever that you have any particular knowledge, insight, or expertise of the subject matter upon which you purport to opine?

88.

[Corsair 115]

There is a thing called air breaks, and there is also a thing called 'pulling back on the trottle", and not flooring it while descending.The 757 can lose up to 1,800 feet per minute in altitude with the throttles at idle and no nose down attitude. How much do you think it'd lose with a 20° pitch down and half power?

Trust me, 30 degree pitch down in a FSX is the same as 30 degree pitch down in a professional Flight Simulator. No difference. Other than force feedback. Give me a reason to trust you. What is the evidence for your claim? Can you prove that statement? Have you alerted the airlines yet that they are spending millions of dollars for sophisticated simulators to train their pilots when they could do it in a classroom and a couple of PCs? I have no doubt they'd welcome you if you could save them that kind of money.

And it's not harder to do than a 270 degree diving turn. A 270° turn means nothing in itself. That number only tells us how MUCH the aircraft turned, it does not tell us how FAST the turn was. To know how fast the turn was, we need to know how long it took for the jet to turn those 270°. The quicker the time, the greater the rate of turn in degrees per second.

A 270° turn done in two minutes is quite a different thing from a 270° turn done in one minute, which is a different thing again from a 270° turn done in thirty seconds.


Third time: how much time have you had in real simulators? Have you ever had any time up front as crew or passenger on a airliner? You're claiming some kind of genuine knowledge and experience with piloting, so if you have that you shouldn't have any trouble providing evidence to that effect.

[beachnut]

For someone with such godly knowledge of flying, you sure sound illogical and ignorant.

Good job.
I know, but it is a darn sight better than your crazy ideas on flying.

Thank you.

[chillzero]

Stop the bickering and name calling. Any further reports from this thread will most likely place it on moderated status.

[LashL]

Compex in comparison to a dive.



Who said anything about breaking the speed of sound. Stop smoking crack/



Makes no sense. There is a thing called air breaks, and there is also a thing called 'pulling back on the trottle", and not flooring it while descending.

You are debating in defense of an insane argument, making your attempt to debate me futile.

Get a clue.

"compex", "air breaks", "trottle".

Yes, someone here ought to get a clue, all right. It's not who you think, though.

88.

[MetalPig]

Are you still seriously sitting there, debating in favor if a claim that somehow that turn was easier and more logical as move, than simply diving into the pentagon?

I have no flying experience, so I won't comment on which manoeuver is easier, but common sense tells me that Hanjour has made many more turns than dives in his short career in flying, and I can easily imagine that on 9/11 he chose to perform the manouever he was more comfortable with and experienced in.

[apathoid]

So many Stundies, so little time to respond....God, only a truther would say that dive bombing a 757 is less complex than turning it, and moreover, that the act turning itself is complex. What did the Kamikazes find easier, Zlaya? Level flight impacts at low level, or dive bombing(from 30 degrees!!111elevety!1) impacts? You might be surprised at the answer, but I am not.

Yes, the act of pushing the column forward, or trimming the stab to max airplane nose down(which is usually only around 3 degrees) is pretty easy, but what happens next is what makes the very idea of this maneuver insane to people who actually know a thing or two about aviation. 30 degrees bank angle = normal; 30 degrees nose down pitch = insane. Get it? Turning = normal; diving bombing = insane. Get it? Your little screen capture(where is the Pentagon BTW??) doesn't show the G forces(google it if you still think that FSX can simulate it) of the descent, nor does it show the rate of acceleration, as well as the rate of descent, in the dive which would both be staggering. The "OVERSPEED" message in your screencap is a big hint though.

There is a reason why diving is not in the repetoire of normal airliner maneuvers. Doing so is extremely dangerous. Anytime an airliner has ever performed a dive, there is usually something every unusual going on and it usually makes the headlines. See:

-TWA 841
-Egypt Air 990
-Aeroflot 593

Idling the engines, extending the speed brakes, flaps, and landing gear might tend to slow the acceleration rate - but the airplane would still accelerate...and quickly. Besides, how would a caveman like Hani Hanjour know to do all that, and how would he know how to do all that? How would he know how to trim the 757? Do you know how to trim a 757? He couldn't even land a Cessna, rememer? :rolleyes:

[apathoid]

Trust me, 30 degree pitch down in a FSX is the same as 30 degree pitch down in a professional Flight Simulator. No difference. Other than force feedback.


How many full motion flight simulators have you flown?



And it's not harder to do than a 270 degree diving turn.

Lets get that straight.



We can't get that straight because you are wrong. You are mixing up the act of putting the airplane into a dive with keeping it there while still being able to control the airplane(hint: FSX probably doesn't accurately model high speed dives) during the high G forces. Oh and there was no diving during the 330 degree turn. The rate of descent during the turn was only slightly above average. If flightsim should have taught you anything, it's that turns are extremely easy. If you find them to be difficult, you are not cut out for flying...

Your argument is a red herring, surprise, red herring on JREF? No way, get out of here.

Please learn our language before attempting to speak it.

[BenBurch]

What simulator was the fool using? Anybody recognize it? I wager the same attempt in X-plane would have resulted in a failure as X-plane attempts to be a physically accurate flight model. Most flight simulators are good for teaching you to use a VOR and follow a glide slope, and not much more.

[BenBurch]

No trim is for trimming a climb, descent, or staying cruising. WTF are you smoking? You teaching me what trim does?



I sure hope SOMEBODY does.

[uk_dave]

Actually, the real reason the terrorists made that slow turn was so that lots of people would clearly see that it was a plane which hit the pentagon and it would forestall any silly conspiracy theories about missiles or bombs which would then detract from their martyrdom.

Ho Hum.

[TjW]

Trust me, 30 degree pitch down in a FSX is the same as 30 degree pitch down in a professional Flight Simulator. No difference. Other than force feedback.

<snippage by TjW>

You won't find anyone to argue this point with you.

However, thirty degrees nose down in an actual airliner is different from either of these. This is the point you seem to be having a problem with.

The map is not the territory. The game is not the airplane.

[Zlaya]

dive bombing a 757

You grannies make it sound like hanjour would have to execute some amazing dive bomb. He simply had to push the nose forward, and lay of the trottle, and blow the whole building up. Instead, he carefuly ligned up with a recently reinforced, and renovated wall, and executing a much more complex move in comparison. Go home and sleep.

Obviously none of you have any common sense.

I hope that the bickering and namecalling here gives you plenty of stundies, but in my book, you guys have shown utter ignorance in this thread.

I love these discussions, you guys make me actually feel superior.

Thank you!

Tin hat wearing conspiracy nuts...

[Zlaya]

You won't find anyone to argue this point with you.

However, thirty degrees nose down in an actual airliner is different from either of these. This is the point you seem to be having a problem with.

The map is not the territory. The game is not the airplane.

So let me get this straight. You too claim that a dive into the pentagon would have been more difficult to execute than the 270 degree diving turn?

Please confirm, so that i can put you in the same loony bin that beachnut is sitting in right now.

[Zlaya]

What simulator was the fool using? Anybody recognize it? I wager the same attempt in X-plane would have resulted in a failure as X-plane attempts to be a physically accurate flight model. Most flight simulators are good for teaching you to use a VOR and follow a glide slope, and not much more.

Its FSX, it supports VFR, IFR and anything else a real simulator would.

Furthermore, i've checked the 30 degree nose dive is not beyond parameters for this type of plane. It may be a bit uncomfortable, but sure as hell it's quicker to do than to turn the whole 757 270 degrees around for no reason.

I dont see how breachnut can claim that hanjour did the turn, so that he wouldn't stress the aircraft. Like he was worried about it?

LOL!

[beachnut]

You grannies make it sound like hanjour would have to execute some amazing dive bomb. He simply had to push the nose forward, and lay of the trottle, and blow the whole building up. Instead, he carefuly ligned up with a recently reinforced, and renovated wall, and executing a much more complex move in comparison. Go home and sleep.

Obviously none of you have any common sense.

I hope that the bickering and namecalling here gives you plenty of stundies, but in my book, you guys have shown utter ignorance in this thread.

I love these discussions, you guys make me actually feel superior.

Thank you!

Tin hat wearing conspiracy nuts...So where did you get these ideas on flying from?

[DGM]

So where did you get these ideas on flying from?
Truther dot org

[JimBenArm]

Truther dot org
You mean it's not from all the years of actually piloting real aircraft? I'm so shocked and disappointed!

Well, not really, but it says a lot that I'm not, anymore.

[apathoid]

Furthermore, i've checked the 30 degree nose dive is not beyond parameters for this type of plane.


Yep, I'm gonna have to ask you to source this claim....

[apathoid]

You grannies make it sound like hanjour would have to execute some amazing dive bomb. He simply had to push the nose forward, and lay of the trottle, and blow the whole building up. Instead, he carefuly ligned up with a recently reinforced, and renovated wall, and executing a much more complex move in comparison. Go home and sleep.

Obviously none of you have any common sense.

I hope that the bickering and namecalling here gives you plenty of stundies, but in my book, you guys have shown utter ignorance in this thread.

I love these discussions, you guys make me actually feel superior.

Thank you!

Tin hat wearing conspiracy nuts...


Common sense. Gotcha.

You'll have to excuse me if I take the word of a few people who have actually flown an airplane, like Beachnut, TjW and Reheat, as well as the opinions of other people who actually know aviation like HL7442, Corsair115, BenBurch, funk de fino and even myself...

[Zlaya]

So where did you get these ideas on flying from?

LOL, it's called "Private Pilot License"

It sounds to me like you need to get re-take that exam.

[apathoid]

LOL, it's called "Private Pilot License"

It sounds to me like you need to get re-take that exam.


Wow, you're a real live pilot all of the sudden! I have an idea, put your 172 in a 30 degree dive for 7000 ft and if you survive, put the video up on youtube. That'll shut us up. Will you do it?

Unfortunately, I don't believe you've flown an airplane, or even been a passenger on one after this comment:

"Maybe in a cessna, in a 757, you can make easy 30 degree nose down, people wouldn't even notice."
:dl:

[Zlaya]

Wow, you're a real live pilot all of the sudden! I have an idea, put your 172 in a 30 degree dive for 7000 ft and if you survive, put the video up on youtube. That'll shut us up. Will you do it?

Unfortunately, I don't believe you've flown an airplane, or even been a passenger on one after this comment:

"Maybe in a cessna, in a 757, you can make easy 30 degree nose down, people wouldn't even notice."
:dl:

You're talking out of your Edited to remove inappropriate remark. again. Do you have any idea how useless you sound?

Are you also claiming that a turn is easier to execute than a simple dive?

Actually you're mouth is more like like Edited to remove inappropriate remark., instead of Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Plea to authority... You out to be kidding me...

Do not use ASCII 'art' to get around the autocensor and do not use insults to argue your point.

[Dave Rogers]

Zlaya,

This all seems to come down to who knows most about flying. Perhaps you could let us all know exactly what is your piloting expertise?

Dave

[Zlaya]

Zlaya,

This all seems to come down to who knows most about flying. Perhaps you could let us all know exactly what is your piloting expertise?

Dave

No it really does not.

It comes down to you guys being in denial of the fact that a dive is much, much much much much simpler to execute for a non experienced pilot, than a careful cordinated 270 degree turn + 6000 foot descent.

It has nothing to do with my piloting expertise, it has to do with basic aviation. If you really think that beachnut is right, and the dive would have been more complex, and that the spiral turn was somehow more logical for hanjour to execute, then you and i disagree.

[apathoid]

Quoted post had been modded, and mostly removed




Awww, my feewings are hurt. :(

[Zlaya]

Wow, you're a real live pilot all of the sudden! I have an idea, put your 172 in a 30 degree dive for 7000 ft and if you survive, put the video up on youtube. That'll shut us up. Will you do it?

Unfortunately, I don't believe you've flown an airplane, or even been a passenger on one after this comment:

"Maybe in a cessna, in a 757, you can make easy 30 degree nose down, people wouldn't even notice."
:dl:

You also think that a 7000 foot dive in a 757 is somehow an emergency manuever, stressing the plane to the brink?

Have you checked in with your doc recently, i think you and beachnut have low blood pressure.

[beachnut]

LOL, it's called "Private Pilot License"

It sounds to me like you need to get re-take that exam.
oops, yes I have a private pilot license, an ATP, a type rating in B707/720. What is your source of these claims of complex turn, easy descents and other flying ideas on 9/11?

We would let you show us the 30 degree pitch down maneuver first. I have never seen normal procedures for a 30 degree pitch down, nor emergency procedures for a 30 degree dive. Watch out below.

[apathoid]

You also think that a 7000 foot dive in a 757 is somehow an emergency manuever, stressing the plane to the brink?

Have you checked in with your doc recently, i think you and beachnut have low blood pressure.


It's not the distance of the dive, it's the speed and rate. At 30 degrees nose down, I'd guess than we're talking about 8,000-12,000 fpm at a speed approacing 600 kts +. This would go well beyond the emergency descent profile for a 757. I'd call it insane, personally...

Are you going to provide a source for this:

"Furthermore, i've checked the 30 degree nose dive is not beyond parameters for this type of plane. "

Where did you check, what was the name of the document?

[Tolls]

Are you going to provide a source for this:

"Furthermore, i've checked the 30 degree nose dive is not beyond parameters for this type of plane. "

Where did you check, what was the name of the document?

He tried it on his flight sim...:)

[Dave Rogers]

It has nothing to do with my piloting expertise, it has to do with basic aviation. If you really think that beachnut is right, and the dive would have been more complex, and that the spiral turn was somehow more logical for hanjour to execute, then you and i disagree.

In which case, we have two opinions to weigh up. Now, if you're a commercial airline pilot with thousands of hours' experience, I would have to take your opinion seriously. If you've never flown anything but MS Flight Simulator, then your opinion has very little value. In the absence of any other information, given that you disagree with people with practical experience of aviation, and given that there are plenty of examples I know of from military aviation history that steep dives are in fact much more difficult than smooth descending turns, then at the moment your credibility is not high. So, on what knowledge or experience are you basing your opinion?

Dave

[Zlaya]

It's not the distance of the dive, it's the speed and rate. At 30 degrees nose down, I'd guess than we're talking about 8,000-12,000 fpm at a speed approacing 600 kts +. This would go well beyond the emergency descent profile for a 757. I'd call it insane, personally...
Yes, if you don't lay off the throttle.

If you lay of the throttle, you can easily descend 7000 feet in 15 seconds, without actually knocking over a cup of coffee.

You talk to me like i know nothing of the subject.

[beachnut]

Yes, if you don't lay off the throttle.

If you lay of the throttle, you can easily descend 7000 feet in 15 seconds, without actually knocking over a cup of coffee.

You talk to me like i know nothing of the subject.
28,000 feet per minute. Show me.

[Minadin]

Yes, if you don't lay off the throttle.

If you lay of the throttle, you can easily descend 7000 feet in 15 seconds, without actually knocking over a cup of coffee.

You talk to me like i know nothing of the subject.

Wait just a second. How fast is your jet traveling here? If you figure a fairly casual speed of 450 mph relative to the ground, that's only 660 fps. Meaning it takes you more than 10.5 seconds to go 7,000 feet forward.

[DGM]

Yes, if you don't lay off the throttle.

If you lay of the throttle, you can easily descend 7000 feet in 15 seconds, without actually knocking over a cup of coffee.

You talk to me like i know nothing of the subject.
Is this with or without the wings?

[Zlaya]

Is this with or without the wings?

For you, without wings.

For all others who actually have common sense - with wings.

[defaultdotxbe]

considering that it takes nearly 30 seconds to fall 7000 feet i dont think youll be able to do it in 15 seconds by "laying off the throttle"

[Zlaya]

considering that it takes nearly 30 seconds to fall 7000 feet i dont think youll be able to do it in 15 seconds by "laying off the throttle"

Yet again, the JREF trolls are all missing the point...

What's easier to do, dive, or turn?

Chose your answer carefully, otherwise you risk to sound as ignorant as beachnut.

[SDC]

Descend at a rate of 28,000 feet per minute??? Speaking for the airline passengers of the world, could you please, please not do that?

This is a very educational forum. I've learned more things that I hope never to experience...

[apathoid]

Zlaya, I mentioned TWA 841 somewhere above and lo and behold, it's dive is remarkably close to your hypothetical 757 dive.

The aircraft went into a spiral dive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_dive), losing about 34,000 feet in 63 seconds.** (For comparison, a normal rate of descent for an airliner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airliner) would be 1800 feet per minute). During the course of the dive, the plane rolled through 360 degrees twice, and crossed the Mach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number) limit for the 727 airframe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airframe). It was later estimated from the flight data recorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_data_recorder) that the plane was momentarily supersonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit%2C_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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_force).

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_%281979%29).


** - 34,000 in 63 seconds is 32,000 fpm which is very close to your 28,000 fpm descent.

How many G's did TWA 841 pull in the 32,000 fpm dive?

Click.Read.Learn (http://forums.randi.org/** - 34,000 in 63 seconds is 32,000 fpm which is very close to your)

6 G's.

[rwguinn]

Yet again, the JREF trolls are all missing the point...

What's easier to do, dive, or turn?

Chose your answer carefully, otherwise you risk to sound as ignorant as beachnut.
When you push forward, what happens?

Airspeed increases. Anazingly enough, that fact that it is called the "Elevator" has nothing to do with anything other than "Raise the nose" "lower the nose"
when airspeed goes up, lift goes up. Lift is a force perpendicular to the wing. So you go off course, unless you correct. But if you correct, you increase airspeed even more. The airplane wants to fly horizontally.

Additionally, if you start at high speed, and go higher, you are apt to go supersonic. As clean as that aircraft is, it wouldn't take long. So, any nasty movements of the stick in the compressible regiem is liable to result in wings and aircraft parting company. Can't steer it at all, then.
Does anybody know: Do the 7X7, or any commercial aircraft have the elevator authority to keep it in a full power dive at the kind of airspeeds we're talking here?

So, zlaya, you join the ranks of the other uneducatables, and go to ignore.
All but 2 of those I have ignored are now banned, and you appear to be aiming that direction. Bye. now.

[Zlaya]

Zlaya, I mentioned TWA 841 somewhere above and lo and behold, it's dive is remarkably close to your hypothetical 757 dive.

The aircraft went into a spiral dive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_dive)[I], [B]losing about 34,000 feet in 63 seconds.

Dude, we're talking about descending 7000 feet, not divebombing from 34000 feet. For some reason, many so called 'pilots' on this board, feel that losing 7000 feet, is MORE DIFFICULT than turning 270 degrees and losing 7000 feet.

Get a clue.

[pomeroo]

Yet again, the JREF trolls are all missing the point...

What's easier to do, dive, or turn?

Chose your answer carefully, otherwise you risk to sound as ignorant as beachnut.


You do understand that beachnut is a real pilot, don't you? You do understand that Apathoid is a real avionics tech?

When I asked in an earlier post about your astonishing obtuseness, I had no idea. You're approaching a Kirkmanic level.

[DGM]

Yet again, the JREF trolls are all missing the point...

What's easier to do, dive, or turn?

Chose your answer carefully, otherwise you risk to sound as ignorant as beachnut.
The thing is Hanni wanted to actually hit the target. So a turn would be better.

Don't try to pretend you know anything about real aviation. It's not working.

[apathoid]

Dude, we're talking about descending 7000 feet, not divebombing from 34000 feet. For some reason, many so called 'pilots' on this board, feel that losing 7000 feet, is MORE DIFFICULT than turning 270 degrees and losing 7000 feet.




Not that it matters, because short of going supersonic, it isn't possible to drop 7000' in 15 seconds(that's where we are getting 28,000 fpm in case you are wondering) with 30 degrees nose down pitch - but do you understand the difference between altitude and rate of descent?

28,000 fpm is 28,000 fpm, regardless of the duration(63 seconds or 15 seconds). The G' forces will be high and 6 g's is typically what a Blue Angels F/A-18 does in a minimum radius turn. Yes, coffee will get spilled, people will black out and maintaining control of the airplane will be difficult(google "G lock"). Please get educated.

ETA:

Furthermore, i've checked the 30 degree nose dive is not beyond parameters for this type of plane. "

Third time: Source please.

[Zlaya]

Not that it matters, because short of going supersonic, it isn't possible to drop 7000' in 15 seconds

Absolute joke, you must be kidding right?

I'm so way beyond done discussing such a basic subject with some people who simply show they don't know anything.

[Corsair 115]

28,000 feet per minute.To put that figure into another context:

28,000 feet per minute * 60 minutes = 1,680,000 feet per hour

1,680,000 feet per hour / 5,280 feet per mile = 318.18 miles per hour.

So the purely vertical component of a 28,000 feet per minute descent is equivalent to 318 miles per hour.


When you push forward, what happens?

Airspeed increases. Anazingly enough, that fact that it is called the "Elevator" has nothing to do with anything other than "Raise the nose" "lower the nose"
when airspeed goes up, lift goes up. Lift is a force perpendicular to the wing. So you go off course, unless you correct. But if you correct, you increase airspeed even more. The airplane wants to fly horizontally.It's also worth noting that if you very quickly push the controls forward you'll experience significant negative G's. Anybody or anything not strapped down will be on their way towards hitting the ceiling.


I'm so way beyond done discussing such a basic subject with some people who simply show they don't know anything.In the famous words of Bart Simpson, the ironing is delicious.

[apathoid]

Absolute joke, you must be kidding right?

I'm so way beyond done discussing such a basic subject with some people who simply show they don't know anything.


What is with troothers and quote mining...I said:

Not that it matters, because short of going supersonic, it isn't possible to drop 7000' in 15 seconds(that's where we are getting 28,000 fpm in case you are wondering) with 30 degrees nose down pitch.

**Those boldings are called qualifiers. Understanding them will help you avoid quote mining people in the future...

At 60~90 degrees nose down(like TWA 841, which went supersonic in its nose dive), yes it is mathematically possible to lose 7,000' in 15 seconds.


ETA:

Furthermore, i've checked the 30 degree nose dive is not beyond parameters for this type of plane. "

Fourth time: Source please.

[Vincent Vega]

To put that figure into another context:

28,000 feet per minute * 60 minutes = 1,680,000 feet per hour

1,680,000 feet per hour / 5,280 feet per mile = 318.18 miles per hour.

So the purely vertical component of a 28,000 feet per minute descent is equivalent to 318 miles per hour.


It's also worth noting that if you very quickly push the controls forward you'll experience significant negative G's. Anybody or anything not strapped down will be on their way towards hitting the ceiling.

Yup thats what I came up with. IF the aircraft was going STRAIGHT Down. A 45 degree dive would need to average 640mph to loose 7,000 feet in 15 seconds.

[pomeroo]

Absolute joke, you must be kidding right?

I'm so way beyond done discussing such a basic subject with some people who simply show they don't know anything.


"I'm so way done..." You're a kid, right? A silly, empty-headed kid and you're arguing with a pilot and an avionics tech?

Do you undertstand that the jihadists killed real people on 9/11/01? Do you get the idea that we're not talking about a video game?

[apathoid]

So the purely vertical component of a 28,000 feet per minute descent is equivalent to 318 miles per hour.



Which is why I wrote this:

Not that it matters, because short of going supersonic, it isn't possible to drop 7000' in 15 seconds(that's where we are getting 28,000 fpm in case you are wondering) with 30 degrees nose down pitch

Anyone know how to calculate the G forces of Zlaya's suggested dive?

[defaultdotxbe]

Zlaya, I mentioned TWA 841 somewhere above and lo and behold, it's dive is remarkably close to your hypothetical 757 dive.

The aircraft went into a spiral dive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_dive), losing about 34,000 feet in 63 seconds.** (For comparison, a normal rate of descent for an airliner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airliner) would be 1800 feet per minute). During the course of the dive, the plane rolled through 360 degrees twice, and crossed the Mach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number) limit for the 727 airframe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airframe). It was later estimated from the flight data recorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_data_recorder) that the plane was momentarily supersonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit%2C_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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_force).

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_%281979%29).


** - 34,000 in 63 seconds is 32,000 fpm which is very close to your 28,000 fpm descent.

How many G's did TWA 841 pull in the 32,000 fpm dive?

Click.Read.Learn (http://forums.randi.org/**%20-%2034,000%20in%2063%20seconds%20is%2032,000%20fpm% 20which%20is%20very%20close%20to%20your)

6 G's.

but the important question is, did anyone spill their coffee?

If you lay of the throttle, you can easily descend 7000 feet in 15 seconds, without actually knocking over a cup of coffee.

[Reheat]

This entire thread is a Stundie. There is more misinformation here than any thread that I've ever read in this Forum. Pushing forward on the control column in a large airline type aircraft to a 30 degree nose down attitude is pure insanity. It is just not done, period. Furthermore, the two inch movement comment to achieve this is very stupid and ignorant. Yes, the pushing the aircraft over to 30 degrees from cruise airspeed is possible for a while until it gains too much airspeed to maintain any semblance of control. Hanjour could not judge this because his target was well below his nose. He had no clue (just like someone else here) how much he needed to lower the nose to dive at the target.

Instead he chose the safe route and did a descending turn which he had done in other aircraft during his previous training. It's not rocket science and he was obviously not a very competent pilot which is exactly why he arrived at the position to either dive or do a descending turn.

Some aircraft can safely execute a 30 degree dive and recover. For example, typical dive bombing in a fighter/bomber is done at 30 to 45 degrees. I can assure it is not easy and it's only done for approximately 4000 ft at the most. The nose is NOT pushed over to enter the dive as this would allow airspeed to build too rapidly. Instead the aircraft is rolled to more than 90 degrees and pulled down with positive G's. This prevents airspeed buildup that would naturally occur during a pushover. Airspeed builds very rapidly even with idle power to arrive at an altitude/airspeed/pitch attitude as calculated for the bomb release. This is a very difficult maneuver for inexperienced pilots and takes considerable practice to perfect.

Guess how many G's are typically pulled in the recovery? No less than 4 G's up to 6+ G's.

To suggest that a large heavy airline type aircraft can safely execute this type of maneuver to crash into a target while losing 7 thousand feet as opposed to a normal descending turn is pure unadulterated ignorance.

I certainly wish someone of Zlaya's caliber had been flying that day and we probably would NOT have had all of those who died in the inferno and US Citizens wouldn't have had to spend millions making the repairs to the building.

This troofer is attempting to turn reality on it's head and it's not going to work.

[Vincent Vega]

to loose 7,000 feet in 15 seconds At a 30 degree nose down angle one would need to be traveling 996 mph.

[Corsair 115]

to loose 7,000 feet in 15 seconds At a 30 degree nose down angle one would need to be traveling 996 mph.Can you show the math on that? I'm curious to see the calculations (not that I'm doubting the veracity of your figure). It's just that I've long since forgotten the steps involved in doing those kinds of calculations.

[apathoid]

This entire thread is a Stundie. There is more misinformation here than any thread that I've ever read in this Forum. Pushing forward on the control column in a large airline type aircraft to a 30 degree nose down attitude is pure insanity. It is just not done, period. Furthermore, the two inch movement comment to achieve this is very stupid and ignorant. Yes, the pushing the aircraft over to 30 degrees from cruise airspeed is possible for a while until it gains too much airspeed to maintain any semblance of control. Hanjour could not judge this because his target was well below his nose. He had no clue (just like someone else here) how much he needed to lower the nose to dive at the target.

Instead he chose the safe route and did a descending turn which he had done in other aircraft during his previous training. It's not rocket science and he was obviously not a very competent pilot which is exactly why he arrived at the position to either dive or do a descending turn.

Some aircraft can safely execute a 30 degree dive and recover. For example, typical dive bombing in a fighter/bomber is done at 30 to 45 degrees. I can assure it is not easy and it's only done for approximately 4000 ft at the most. The nose is NOT pushed over to enter the dive as this would allow airspeed to build too rapidly. Instead the aircraft is rolled to more than 90 degrees and pulled down with positive G's. This prevents airspeed buildup that would naturally occur during a pushover. Airspeed builds very rapidly even with idle power to arrive at an altitude/airspeed/pitch attitude as calculated for the bomb release. This is a very difficult maneuver for inexperienced pilots and takes considerable practice to perfect.

Guess how many G's are typically pulled in the recovery? No less than 4 G's up to 6+ G's.

To suggest that a large heavy airline type aircraft can safely execute this type of maneuver to crash into a target while losing 7 thousand feet as opposed to a normal descending turn is pure unadulterated ignorance.

I certainly wish someone of Zlaya's caliber had been flying that day and we probably would NOT have had all of those who died in the inferno and US Citizens wouldn't have had to spend millions making the repairs to the building.

This troofer is attempting to turn reality on it's head and it's not going to work.

You haven't heard, we're all ignorant of all things aviation and Mr. Zlaya here has pwn3d us repeatedly with his vast aviation expertise..

[/sarcasm dripping as if were being held by a seive]

[Reheat]

to loose 7,000 feet in 15 seconds At a 30 degree nose down angle one would need to be traveling 996 mph.

No, this is not correct. The aircraft is moving LATERALLY, so it's a combination of forward speed and rate of descent.

It's a 28,000 FPM rate of descent at whatever forward speed exists at the time.

[beachnut]

http://www.truthring.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/30pitchdown.jpg

There you go. It's not so bad. The plane didn't fall apart. To me, this was much easier to do, than to waste 2 minutes turning 270 degrees, and only losing 7000 feet.

This 30 degree dive took no time, and it was simple. The impact decapitated the US military might.

Your path only hit a renovated area, no major casualties.
See the little overspeed. (IN YOUR PHOTO SHERLOCK)

Since Dick did it, why do you always mention Hani? Why did Dick do a "difficult" turn, a complex turn instead of just flying 77 into the roof and minimizing damage to other wings in the large office building in the world.

Gee, I thought Hani showed up too high or could not find the Pentagon, (he was way too high for NORMAL approach to hit the Pentagon) did a standard, easy altitude loosing turn. But you tell me, (and I am only an old instructor pilot who trained people how to fly LARGE Aircraft, 300,000 pounds, 4 engines) it is easier to do what no normal pilot has ever practice in a large airliner because it will over speed the plane, a high speed dive on a target.

Your path only hit a renovated area, no major casualtiesPlease some explain why this is an false statement.

[apathoid]

I get 632 mph for an average speed. So if the plane started out at 500 mph, it could be going as fast as 764 mph by the end of the dive...if my math is right, which it probably isn't. :)

[Vincent Vega]

No, this is not correct. The aircraft is moving LATERALLY, so it's a combination of forward speed and rate of descent.

It's a 28,000 FPM rate of descent at whatever forward speed exists at the time.

OK help me out here. 7,000 feet in 15 seconds is 318 mph when moving straight down (90 degree angle) then when moving at a 45 degree downward angle the lateral distance covered equals altitude lost, so the speed would have to be twice as fast to maintain the rate of decent.

Then can extrapolate if the angle is 30 degrees, would need 996 mph.

If not correct then what is the speed?

[BenBurch]

FSX?!!! Its a piece of crap unless you stay inside the envelope pertaining to civil aviation.

Go buy X-plane and then try it.

But do remember the real reason he flew as he did; He missed the target, and only understood that when he visualized DC. And so he did the correct thing to make that attack, a descending turn. And a really poor one with bad coordination.

What was his other option? Fly on a considerable distance and then turn and approach with a normal descent rate?

Certainly not a steep dive; He knew his limitations, and how painfully easy it would be to screw up and miss entirely. What he did ensured a hit.

I'm surprised you didn't suggest a Boom and Zoom with a rudder reversal. :rolleyes:

[HL7442]

Who here thinks Zlaya is on the JREF to stir up trouble. I'm done arguing with a child.

[Reheat]

Another issue that no one has mentioned and that our resident troofer does not understand is that the INITIAL pitch down attitude would have to increase in order to hit a stationary target on the ground as the airspeed increased. The initial pitch attitude might be 30 degrees, but as airspeed increased the pilot would have to increase the rate of descent by pushing the nose over more in order to hit the stationary target. Over a short distance this might not be a problem, but from cruise airspeed while losing 7,000' this would be a significant problem.

The cockpit photo of the PC Sim is deceptive. The problem is that a single photo can not show the entire sequence which is rapidly increasing airspeed (overspeed) and an increasing descent rate which would necessitate an increasing pitch attitude.

Our resident troofer has no clue, and no facts. The ignorance displayed is definitely worthy of the Stundie award of the year. The obtuse attitude makes it worst and we should hope he/she sticks around so that lurkers and fence sitters can see what ignorance is blatantly on display.

[BenBurch]

...Then can extrapolate if the angle is 30 degrees, would need 996 mph.

If not correct then what is the speed?

Drag goes way up near Mach 1 if I recall correctly, and of course a 757 would not be maneuverable at all near Mach 1, and I'd expect bits to break off in short order.

[Zlaya]

Another issue that no one has mentioned and that our resident troofer does not understand is that the INITIAL pitch down attitude would have to increase in order to hit a stationary target on the ground as the airspeed increased. The initial pitch attitude might be 30 degrees, but as airspeed increased the pilot would have to increase the rate of descent by pushing the nose over more in order to hit the stationary target. Over a short distance this might not be a problem, but from cruise airspeed while losing 7,000' this would be a significant problem.

The cockpit photo of the PC Sim is deceptive. The problem is that a single photo can not show the entire sequence which is rapidly increasing airspeed (overspeed) and an increasing descent rate which would necessitate an increasing pitch attitude.

Our resident troofer has no clue, and no facts. The ignorance displayed is definitely worthy of the Stundie award of the year. The obtuse attitude makes it worst and we should hope he/she sticks around so that lurkers and fence sitters can see what ignorance is blatantly on display.



You guys are so beyond blind by ignorance that i'm not even going to try to explain one more time that a turn requires much more skill than a dive.

You guys lose, sanity wins.

Good game. I'm not here to stir trouble, i'm here to point out how wrong many of you are, and this thread shows exactly how true this is.

Good job, thanks for playing...

[rwguinn]

OK help me out here. 7,000 feet in 15 seconds is 318 mph when moving straight down (90 degree angle) then when moving at a 45 degree downward angle the lateral distance covered equals altitude lost, so the speed would have to be twice as fast to maintain the rate of decent.

Then can extrapolate if the angle is 30 degrees, would need 996 mph.

If not correct then what is the speed?

at a 45, the total airspeed would be Vv/.707, or vertical velocity divided by sin(45) (in degrees!).
At 30 degrees, it is Vv/.5 (where .5=sin(30) degrees)

[rwguinn]

Another issue that no one has mentioned and that our resident troofer does not understand is that the INITIAL pitch down attitude would have to increase in order to hit a stationary target on the ground as the airspeed increased. The initial pitch attitude might be 30 degrees, but as airspeed increased the pilot would have to increase the rate of descent by pushing the nose over more in order to hit the stationary target. Over a short distance this might not be a problem, but from cruise airspeed while losing 7,000' this would be a significant problem.

The cockpit photo of the PC Sim is deceptive. The problem is that a single photo can not show the entire sequence which is rapidly increasing airspeed (overspeed) and an increasing descent rate which would necessitate an increasing pitch attitude.

Our resident troofer has no clue, and no facts. The ignorance displayed is definitely worthy of the Stundie award of the year. The obtuse attitude makes it worst and we should hope he/she sticks around so that lurkers and fence sitters can see what ignorance is blatantly on display.

Ahem!

When you push forward, what happens?

Airspeed increases. Anazingly enough, that fact that it is called the "Elevator" has nothing to do with anything other than "Raise the nose" "lower the nose"
when airspeed goes up, lift goes up. Lift is a force perpendicular to the wing. So you go off course, unless you correct. But if you correct, you increase airspeed even more. The airplane wants to fly horizontally.

Additionally, if you start at high speed, and go higher, you are apt to go supersonic. As clean as that aircraft is, it wouldn't take long. So, any nasty movements of the stick in the compressible regiem is liable to result in wings and aircraft parting company. Can't steer it at all, then.
Does anybody know: Do the 7X7, or any commercial aircraft have the elevator authority to keep it in a full power dive at the kind of airspeeds we're talking here?

So, zlaya, you join the ranks of the other uneducatables, and go to ignore.
All but 2 of those I have ignored are now banned, and you appear to be aiming that direction. Bye. now.

[BenBurch]

No, a dive is much, much harder.

Try it in a real simulator with real flight dynamics. One that will show you compressibility near Mach 1, and control flutter. And mind your airspeed!

The Germans had a very nice bombsight on the Stuka... Learn a little about it and that aircraft and then come back here and tell me how easy it is to hit something in a dive.

I also recommend the book "Stuka Pilot" By Hans Ulrich Rudel.

[rwguinn]

Drag goes way up near Mach 1 if I recall correctly, and of course a 757 would not be maneuverable at all near Mach 1, and I'd expect bits to break off in short order.
You, too!

When you push forward, what happens?

Airspeed increases. Anazingly enough, that fact that it is called the "Elevator" has nothing to do with anything other than "Raise the nose" "lower the nose"
when airspeed goes up, lift goes up. Lift is a force perpendicular to the wing. So you go off course, unless you correct. But if you correct, you increase airspeed even more. The airplane wants to fly horizontally.

Additionally, if you start at high speed, and go higher, you are apt to go supersonic. As clean as that aircraft is, it wouldn't take long. So, any nasty movements of the stick in the compressible regiem is liable to result in wings and aircraft parting company. Can't steer it at all, then.
Does anybody know: Do the 7X7, or any commercial aircraft have the elevator authority to keep it in a full power dive at the kind of airspeeds we're talking here?

So, zlaya, you join the ranks of the other uneducatables, and go to ignore.
All but 2 of those I have ignored are now banned, and you appear to be aiming that direction. Bye. now.

[apathoid]

at a 45, the total airspeed would be Vv/.707, or vertical velocity divided by sin(45) (in degrees!).
At 30 degrees, it is Vv/.5 (where .5=sin(30) degrees)





Where ...
side a is average vertical velocity vector in mph
side b is distance travelled along the ground
side c is average forward speed in mph
angle a is nose attitude

side a 316
side b 547.3280551917652
side c 632.0000000000001
angle A 30
angle B 60

http://www.carbidedepot.com/triangle-right.jpg

Correct? And worth noting that these are averages, not maximums....

[Vincent Vega]

at a 45, the total airspeed would be Vv/.707, or vertical velocity divided by sin(45) (in degrees!).
At 30 degrees, it is Vv/.5 (where .5=sin(30) degrees)

If @ 90 degrees Vv= 318 mph,

then 45 degrees = 632 mph to maintain Vv,

and @ 30 degrees = 853 mph*

Of course thats only accounting for straight line distance covered.

[BenBurch]

You, too!


As I thought. Thanks!

[Reheat]

Ahem!

Yes, this is a good point, but it's not the same as the one I'm making... it's related, but different or else I'm misunderstanding your point.

[BenBurch]

Yes, this is a good point, but it's not the same as the one I'm making... it's related, but different or else I'm misunderstanding your point.

And both taken together; There is no way a dive would have been easier or even possible. Had he tried we would be talking about the 757 that broke up trying to attack the Pentagon and the people in an office park that the falling wreckage killed.

[Reheat]

And both taken together; There is no way a dive would have been easier or even possible. Had he tried we would be talking about the 757 that broke up trying to attack the Pentagon and the people in an office park that the falling wreckage killed.

Or else he would have ended up as "unscorable at 12:00", perhaps even as far as the Potomac!

[Reheat]

You guys work the math on the velocity vector, I'm not interested in that exercise and it's not relevant to the discussion anyway....

[apathoid]

You guys are so beyond blind by ignorance that i'm not even going to try to explain one more time that a turn requires much more skill than a dive.

You guys lose, sanity wins.

Good game. I'm not here to stir trouble, i'm here to point out how wrong many of you are, and this thread shows exactly how true this is.

Good job, thanks for playing...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/99024584149cca03f.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3159)

Any luck finding that source on the 757 being certified for 30 degree pitch down descents?

[Zlaya]

Drag goes way up near Mach 1 if I recall correctly, and of course a 757 would not be maneuverable at all near Mach 1, and I'd expect bits to break off in short order.

I really don't see where you see the need to approach mach 1, especially considering the fact that one could just set the throttle to idle, extend the airbreaks if the speed is getting above 400, and even flaps, if for some reason the plane is approaching Mach 1 speeds.

Any monkey can see that a dive is simpler and faster to execute, than the comparatively complex 270 degree turn/dive that was done instead.

You guys are just making these numbers up, out of your butt, thinking i'm just some dumb schmuck.

Are you really pilots? Not according to the garbage you've posted in rebuttal.

[Zlaya]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/99024584149cca03f.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3159)

Any luck finding that source on the 757 being certified for 30 degree pitch down descents?

Any luck finding source for your RIDICULOUS claim that a dive would somehow be more difficult to execute than a 270 degree turn while diving.

I know i know, you're the expert.

[X]

To put that figure into another context:

28,000 feet per minute * 60 minutes = 1,680,000 feet per hour

1,680,000 feet per hour / 5,280 feet per mile = 318.18 miles per hour.

So the purely vertical component of a 28,000 feet per minute descent is equivalent to 318 miles per hour.

Dang it. You beat me to it.
Oh well, I can answer the 30º one.


to loose 7,000 feet in 15 seconds At a 30 degree nose down angle one would need to be traveling 996 mph.
Can you show the math on that? I'm curious to see the calculations (not that I'm doubting the veracity of your figure). It's just that I've long since forgotten the steps involved in doing those kinds of calculations.

He's a little bit off.

If we assume a 30º dive angle (downward) from the horizontal, with 7,000 ft on the vertical axis, then the total distance the plane has to travel will be 14,000 ft.

This follows from the Sine law using a right-angle triangle. In this case, it comes out as (7,000/sin 30º) = (total distance/sin 90º) = (horizontal distance/sin 60º).
Sin30º = 0.5, sin90 = 1.0.
Thus, for total distance, you get (7,000/0.5) = (total distance/1), and therefore (total distance) = 14,000 ft.

Zlaya says this is accomplishable in 15 seconds.

To compare, somebody mentioned it would take 30 seconds to fall 7,000 ft.
I don't know how they calculated that.
Neglecting wind resistance, the formula is (distance) = 0.5(acceleration)[(time)^2].
Re-arranging this gives us (time) = sq. rt.[2*(distance)/(time)]
In the case of free-falling, the acceleration is gravity, 32.2 ft/s/s. The distance specified is 7,000 ft.
The time for free falling is then sq. rt.[2*(7,000)/(32.2)] = 20.85 seconds.

But let's set aside the fact that you are descending faster than gravity to pull this off (the connotations of which are that, in order to descend faster than free-fall, you have to provide enough thrust to do while overcoming the not-insignificant wind resistance).

If we take Zlaya's 30º dive angle, and ignore all the other principals of aerodynamics and physics which show how difficult this is, it would require the aircraft to be travelling at an average (total distance/total time) speed of 636.4 mph.

14,000 ft in 15 s
=> (14,000 ft/15 s) = 933.33 ft/s
=> (933.33 ft/s)/(5280 ft/mi) = 0.1768 mi/s
=> (0.1768 mi/s)*(3,600 s/hr) = 636.4 mi/hr.

Remember, too, that this is dependant on the dive angle. A shallower dive angle would require a greater total distance in the same time, increasing the speed.


As to the speed of sound arguments:

(speed of sound) = sq. rt.[(heat capacity ratio)*(gas constant)*(temperature)]
where:
the heat capacity ratio for air is 1.4
the gas constant for air is 1716 (ft.lb/slug.ºR)
temperature is in degrees Rankine (0ºR = 459.67ºF, divisions are the same), available here (http://www.pdas.com/e2.htm) for different altitudes.
The result will be in terms of feet per second.
To convert to miles per hour, multiply by 0.682

For an example: at 40,000 ft altitute, T = 390.0ºR
Thus: (speed of sound) = (0.682)*sq. rt.[(1.4)*(1716)*(390)] = 634.25 mph.

Easy as pie.
Mach number = (speed of aircraft)/(speed of sound)


All these U.S. units you guys insist on using made me have to go pull out my Aerodynamics text for the constants. S.I. units are much simpler. Convert!


ETA: Dang, you guys move quick.
It looks like I was beaten to the post.
Oh well, at least these calcullations should negate Zlaya's claim that we're "making this up".
Zlaya: If you feel any of the formulas I've used are incorrect (most are simple trigonometry or unit conversions. The speed of sound equation you can easily verify for yourself), thne please, let me know which formula is wrong and why it is wrong.

And for the record, I'm not a pilot. I'm an Aerospace Engineering student.

[apathoid]

You guys are just making these numbers up, out of your butt, thinking i'm just some dumb schmuck.

You're partly right.

Anyhow, if our math is wrong, lets see your math showing how a 15 second, 7000' descent can be done under 400 kts....

[Zlaya]

;3257291']Dang it. You beat me to it.
Oh well, I can answer the 30º one.




He's a little bit off.

If we assume a 30º dive angle (downward) from the horizontal, with 7,000 ft on the vertical axis, then the total distance the plane has to travel will be 14,000 ft.

This follows from the Sine law using a right-angle triangle. In this case, it comes out as (7,000/sin 30º) = (total distance/sin 90º) = (horizontal distance/sin 60º).
Sin30º = 0.5, sin90 = 1.0.
Thus, for total distance, you get (7,000/0.5) = (total distance/1), and therefore (total distance) = 14,000 ft.

Zlaya says this is accomplishable in 15 seconds.

To compare, somebody mentioned it would take 30 seconds to fall 7,000 ft.
I don't know how they calculated that.
Neglecting wind resistance, the formula is (distance) = 0.5(acceleration)[(time)^2].
Re-arranging this gives us (time) = sq. rt.[2*(distance)/(time)]
In the case of free-falling, the acceleration is gravity, 32.2 ft/s/s. The distance specified is 7,000 ft.
The time for free falling is then sq. rt.[2*(7,000)/(32.2)] = 20.85 seconds.

But let'sset aside the fact that you are descending faster than gravity to pull this off (the connotations of which are that, in order to descend faster than free-fall, you have to provide enough thrust to do while overcoming the not-insignificant wind resistance).

If we take Zlaya's 30º dive angle, and ignore all the other principals of aerodynamics and phyisics which show how difficult this is, it would require the aircraft to be travelling at an average (total distance/total time) speed of 636.4 mph.

14,000 ft in 15 s
=> (14,000 ft/15 s) = 933.33 ft/s
=> (933.33 ft/s)/(5280 ft/mi) = 0.1768 mi/s
=> (0.1768 mi/s)*(3,600 s/hr) = 636.4 mi/hr.

Remember, too, that this is dependant on the dive angle. A shallower dive angle would require a greater total distance in the same time, increasing the speed.


As to the speed of sound arguments:

(speed of sound) = sq. rt.[(heat capacity ratio)*(gas constant)*(temperature)]
where:
the heat capacity ratio for air is 1.4
the gas constant for air is 1716 (ft.lb/slug.ºR)
temperature is in degrees Rankine (0ºR = 459.67ºF, divisions are the same), available here (http://www.pdas.com/e2.htm) for different altitudes.
The result will be in terms of feet per second.
To convert to miles per hour, multiply by 0.682

For an example: at 40,000 ft altitute, T = 390.0ºR
Thus: (speed of sound) = (0.682)*sq. rt.[(1.4)*(1716)*(390)] = 634.25 mph.

Easy as pie.
Mach number = (speed of aircraft)/(speed of sound)


All these U.S. units you guys insist on using made me have to go pull out my Aerodynamics text for the constants. S.I. units are much simpler. Convert!


ETA: Dang, you guys move quick.
It looks like I was beaten to the post.
Oh well, at least these calcullations should negate Zlaya's claim that we're "making this up".
Zlaya: If you feel any of the formulas I've used are incorrect (most are simple trigonometry or unit conversions. The speed of sound equation you can easily verify for yourself), thne please, let me know which formula is wrong and why it is wrong.

And for the record, I'm not a pilot. I'm an Aerospace Engineering student.

So does your math somehow prove that a dive would be more complex to execute than the 270 degree turn, using almost perfect 20 degree bank, and keeping the pegged at about 290 the whole time?

Somehow, i find it hard to believe that i'm being attacked on this.

[rwguinn]

You're partly right.

Anyhow, if our math is wrong, lets see your math showing how a 15 second, 7000' descent can be done under 400 kts....
Actually, if you quoted properly, about 40% of zlaya's statement is true...

[Minadin]

OK help me out here. 7,000 feet in 15 seconds is 318 mph when moving straight down (90 degree angle) then when moving at a 45 degree downward angle the lateral distance covered equals altitude lost, so the speed would have to be twice as fast to maintain the rate of decent.

Then can extrapolate if the angle is 30 degrees, would need 996 mph.

If not correct then what is the speed?

If I make a right triangle with the short vertical side being 318 units, and the angle which is not perpendicular is 30 degrees, the hypotenuse of this triangle is 636 units. So that should be the average speed. The horizontal component would be about 550 units.

Or, if you're looking at distances rather than speeds there, a 7,000 ft drop at a 30 degree angle has a triangle whose hypotenuse is 14,000 ft. (12,124 ft horizontally). 14,000 ft. in 15 seconds is 56,000 fpm. 933 fps. Still 636 mph. Average.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12532476838919ef80.gif

[defaultdotxbe]

To compare, somebody mentioned it would take 30 seconds to fall 7,000 ft.
I don't know how they calculated that.
i calculated that in 15 seconds youd fall 3600 feet, doubled that (forgetting that distance isnt proportional to time, its the square of time) to get 7200 feet in 30 seconds, so just under 30 seconds

hey, pobody's nerfect, but my point was to illustrate that you cant even fall 7000 feet in 15 seconds, so youd have to be accelerating beyond freefall in addition to any horizontal velocity you need to maintain control of the aircraft

[defaultdotxbe]

So does your math somehow prove that a dive would be more complex to execute than the 270 degree turn, using almost perfect 20 degree bank, and keeping the pegged at about 290 the whole time?

Somehow, i find it hard to believe that i'm being attacked on this.
i dont think the problem is in executing the dive, the problem is in being able to control the aircraft through such a rapid descent and being able to ensure you manage to hit your target

[X]

So does your math somehow prove that a dive would be more complex to execute than the 270 degree turn, using almost perfect 20 degree bank, and keeping the pegged at about 290 the whole time?

Somehow, I find it hard to believe that I'm being attacked on this.

I'm not attacking you.
I'm merely trying to show you that your claim of descending 7,000 ft in 15 seconds is, for all intents and purposes, impossible.


Nothing more.


Turning, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, is relatively easy.
Bank the plane, and the lift will push sideways as well as up (compared to horizontal), making you turn. It also means less lift fot maintaining altitude, so you can either compensate for that or descend. Take your pick.

(Actually, I seem to recall something about lift coefficient profiles coming into pla here, but have to dig into my test to find it again.)

You made a false claim, and got proven wrong.
Accept it, and lose the battle with grace.

[beachnut]

So does your math somehow prove that a dive would be more complex to execute than the 270 degree turn, using almost perfect 20 degree bank, and keeping the pegged at about 290 the whole time?

Somehow, i find it hard to believe that i'm being attacked on this.
Oops here is some of Hani's better perfect 20 degrees of bank! Every quarter second to show how perfect Hani is!
14.1
14.8
14.8
15.5
16.5
17.9
19.3
20.7
21.4
22.5
22.9
23.2
23.6
23.2
22.9
22.9
22.5
22.5
22.1
22.1
21.8
21.8
21.4
21.4
21.8
22.1
22.1
22.5
22.9
23.2
23.2
23.6
23.6
23.9
23.9
24.3
24.3
24.3
24.6
24.6
24.6
24.6
24.6
25
25
25
25
25
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25
25
25
25
24.6
24.6
24.3
24.3
23.9
23.9
23.6
23.6
23.2
22.9
22.9
22.5
22.1
22.1
21.8
21.4
21.1
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.4
20.4
19.7
18.6
17.2
16.2
15.5
15.1
15.1
15.5
15.8
16.2
16.5
17.2
17.6
18.3
19

Oops, not very good! Wrong again. Hani's perfect bank goes as high as 41 degrees, and all over from 25 to 17, back up, back down, it is bad! So show me a perfect 20 degree bank of Hani. Grade Unsat, pink slip

[X]

23.5 second (counting beachnut's log entries).

270 degrees.

~ 11.5 degrees/second.

Give me a radius and I can tell you the forces felt by the plane and passengers.

[apathoid]

;3257377']23.5 second (counting beachnut's log entries).

270 degrees.

~ 11.5 degrees/second.

Give me a radius and I can tell you the forces felt by the plane and passengers.


Actually, the 330 degree turn happened over a span of 150 seconds, not very impressive, but a bit more agressive than an average turn, especially given the higher speed.

[Zlaya]

Oops here is some of Hani's better perfect 20 degrees of bank! Every quarter second to show how perfect Hani is!

And the average = 21.75263158


Pretty damn good, if you ask me.

Let me ask you again, whats easier to execute, a 270 degree spiral + lose 7000 feet, or to just dive and lose 7000 feet.

The point here is that you guys are claiming that the plane didn't have enough time to dive those 7000 feet, when in fact ALL FACTS contradict your claims.

You fail. Again.

[beachnut]

So does your math somehow prove that a dive would be more complex to execute than the 270 degree turn, using almost perfect 20 degree bank, and keeping the pegged at about 290 the whole time?

Somehow, i find it hard to believe that i'm being attacked on this.
Pegged at 290!!! yep, wrong again!
Samples at one second of airspeed flight 77 pegged at 290! Pegged!
287.5 288.5 289 289 289.5 289.5 290 290.5 291 290.5 291.5
292 292.5 294 295 296 296.5 297.5 300 300 301 302 303 303
303 303 302.5 301.5 301 300.5 299.5 298 296.5 294.5 293 291.5
290 288.5 287 285 284 282 281 280.5 279.5 279 278 278 278
278 278.5 278 278.5 279 280.5 281.5 283 284 285.5 286 287
289 289.5 291.5 293 294 294 294.5 295 295.5 296.5 297 297
297.5 297 297 296.5 296

Just pegged.

Later we have 265! Pegged at 290!~
Oops back up to 274.5, still pegged at 290!
Back to 265, but Zlaya, calls that pegged at 290!
Yes sir. Then we get later we have 285, then 298.5! Pegged at 290!

[ElMondoHummus]

And the average = 21.75263158


Pretty damn good, if you ask me.


What the ...??

The whole point of Beach's post was that the plane kept oscillating back and forth between the values! It wasn't held!

Good grief!...

[Slayhamlet]

Who here thinks Zlaya is on the JREF to stir up trouble. I'm done arguing with a child.

I'm guessing 14 years old. At that age I knew everything better than the adults as well.

[Zlaya]

Pegged at 290!!! yep, wrong again!
Samples at one second of airspeed flight 77 pegged at 290! Pegged!
287.5 288.5 289 289 289.5 289.5 290 290.5 291 290.5 291.5
292 292.5 294 295 296 296.5 297.5 300 300 301 302 303 303
303 303 302.5 301.5 301 300.5 299.5 298 296.5 294.5 293 291.5
290 288.5 287 285 284 282 281 280.5 279.5 279 278 278 278
278 278.5 278 278.5 279 280.5 281.5 283 284 285.5 286 287
289 289.5 291.5 293 294 294 294.5 295 295.5 296.5 297 297
297.5 297 297 296.5 296

Just pegged.

Later we have 265! Pegged at 290!~
Oops back up to 274.5, still pegged at 290!
Back to 265, but Zlaya, calls that pegged at 290!
Yes sir. Then we get later we have 285, then 298.5! Pegged at 290!

I estimated my numbers. Can you say 'estimate'? 30 pitch dive was a guess. 15 seconds was a guess. 20 degree bank was a rough estimate. 290 kts was a rough estimate. All based on rough values. But here you are, pretending to 'debunk' me by nitpicking. And even then, it shows that i'm correct.

Again, like a good little blind debunker who desn't even understand the basic concepts i'm trying to convey to him, you just can't communicate. Clunkity Clunk? Does that communicate?

Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk?

I'm done with you. You are obviously never going to admit that you're dead wrong buddy.

If you as a pilot are finding it harder to dive, than to turn in a spiral and dive, then you, my friend, are one messed up pilot, and i wouldn't trust you to fly my mail.

Clunkity Clunk?

[X]

Actually, the 330 degree turn happened over a span of 150 seconds, not very impressive, but a bit more agressive than an average turn, especially given the higher speed.

Okay. 2.2 degrees per second => 0.04 radians per second.

Normal acceleration is (radius)*(angular velocity in radians per second)^2.
Force on passenger = (passenger mass)*(normal acceleration).
This is assuming, of course, that the plaens speed is constant.

Normal acceleration is acceleration towards centre of circular path
(for those who don't or weren't forced to know this: acceleration is a change in velocity; velocity is a vectore, it has both magnitude and direction; turning consists of a change of direction, and hence is acceleration. Speed, on the other hand, is a scalar, and has only magnitude.)


And the average = 21.75263158


Pretty damn good, if you ask me.

Let me ask you again, whats easier to execute, a 270 degree spiral + lose 7000 feet, or to just dive and lose 7000 feet.

The point here is that you guys are claiming that the plane didn't have enough time to dive those 7000 feet, when in fact ALL FACTS contradict your claims.

You fail. Again.

ETA: sorry, my computer chose a bad moment to go odd.

Responding to Zlaya:
In the realm of physics and aerodyunamics, a 270 degree turn is easier.

The point we are making is that diving those 7,000 feet is absurd, rediculous, dangerous, and nearly impossible to do and controll.

I don't know what facts you are referencing. Either you haven't understood the math that's been shown to you (nothing against you if that is the case, math isn't everyone's forte), or else you just don't want to be confused with the facts when you've already made up your mind.

[Zlaya]

There is no way a dive would have been easier or even possible.

OK, so we finally have a JREF answer right here - a consensus?

Is that it? As long as you all say the same thing, that obviously must be the truth.

Great. I need to put that in my book about the characters here and their statements. This one is the absolute cream of the crop.

Dive would have been impossible. From 7000 feet? In a 757?

Utter joke.

[Zlaya]

What the ...??

The whole point of Beach's post was that the plane kept oscillating back and forth between the values! It wasn't held!

Good grief!...

Hmm, so if hanjour was such a bad pilot, and he had trouble keeping that steady turn, why did he initiate the turn, and why did he not simply dive into the roof of the pentagon?

Because diving would have been impossible?

Utter joke!

[uk_dave]

Because he would have had even greater difficulty in keeping his plane on target at the speed your dive would have it traveling at.

[Slayhamlet]

Hmm, so if hanjour was such a bad pilot, and he had trouble keeping that steady turn, why did he initiate the turn, and why did he not simply dive into the roof of the pentagon?

Because diving would have been impossible?

Utter joke!

Because he wasn't an utter moron, maybe, and realized that he would have next to no chance of hitting the Pentagon if he did a dive.

Find a single pilot who agrees with you. You're not even old enough to hold a pilot's license, so don't try claiming you're one.

[X]

Hmm, so if Hanjour was such a bad pilot, and he had trouble keeping that steady turn, why did he initiate the turn, and why did he not simply dive into the roof of the pentagon?

Because diving would have been impossible?

Utter joke!

I think you've missed the many posts telling you that diving is a much harder, and more risky manouver than a turn. Losing altitube in a turn isn't hard. The plane is tilted, so less lift acts vertically.

The better question would be: If Hanjour was such a bad pilot that he couldn't plot a descent, and had to perform a hurried turn to recover, do you really think a dive was within the realm of his abilities?

How strongly do you cling to your straw of blind faith?

[beachnut]

And the average = 21.75263158


Pretty damn good, if you ask me.

Let me ask you again, whats easier to execute, a 270 degree spiral + lose 7000 feet, or to just dive and lose 7000 feet.

The point here is that you guys are claiming that the plane didn't have enough time to dive those 7000 feet, when in fact ALL FACTS contradict your claims.

You fail. Again.
Okay pilots tell me what grade you get for a 30 degree bank turn if you do what I showed? Let me show the samples for the pegged 20 degree turn Zlaya says we have from Hani; and just how low are Zlaya's standards?

20.7 to 20.7, and we can ignore the failing roll in and roll out. From 20.7 we have the following cute numbers ---
33.7 32.7 31.6 30.6 29.9 28.8 27.1 26.4 25.3 – that was a few samples and they really look like 20 degree to me! Yep; wrong again!
20 23.9 24.3 22.9 21.8 20 18.6 17.6 17.2 17.2 17.9 17.2 16.9 17.9 18.6 19 19.3, I am getting sick looking at the bank vary a degree a second. Not bad for rolling in and out but not exactly 20 degrees.

Now for the best part of 20 degrees! 32.55 average here, not 20! Are you wrong again.

27.4
26.7
26.4
27.8
28.5
29.9
30.2
30.6
31.3
32
33
34.1
35.2
35.9
36.6
36.9
37.3
37.6
38
38.3
38.3
38.7
39.4
39.7
40.1
40.4
40.8
41.1
41.8
39.7
37.3
34.5
31.6
29.5
28.1
27.8
28.1
29.2
30.2
31.6
33
33.7
33.7
32.3
30.6
28.1
26
24.6
23.9
I love these samples showing Hani must of been so smooth! 41.5 degree bank, how does that fit with a steady 20 degree bank.

I find your steady stuff, a joke. Average that. UnSat

[rwguinn]

;3257435']Okay. 2.2 degrees per second => 0.04 radians per second.

Normal acceleration is (radius)*(angular velocity in radians per second).
Force on passenger = (passenger mass)*(normal acceleration).
This is assuming, of course, that the plaens speed is constant.

Normal acceleration is acceleration towards centre of cicurlar path
(for those who don't or weren't forced to know this: acceleration is a change in velocity; velocity is a vectore, it has both magnitude and direction; turning consists of a change of direction, and hence is acceleration. Speed, on the other hand, is a scalar, and has only magnitude.)

That's angular velocity squared please..
d^2(x)/dt^2=r*w^2
so

f=m*r*w^2

;3257435']

ETA: sorry, my computer chose a bad moment to go odd.

Responding to Zlaya:
In the realm of physics and aerodyunamics, a 270 degree turn is easier.

The point we are making is that diving those 7,000 feet is absurd, rediculous, dangerous, and nearly impossible to do and controll.

I don't know what facts you are referencing. Either you haven't understood the math that's been shown to you (nothing against you if that is the case, math isn't everyone's forte), or else you just don't want to be confused with the facts when you've already made up your mind.

Your math-abuse probably caused it to go odd....:D

[X]

That's angular velocity squared please..
d^2(x)/dt^2=r*w^2
so

f=m*r*w^2



Your math-abuse probably caused it to go odd....:D


Ack! :jaw-dropp

I knew that, too, seeing as I wrote the final exam for Dynamics yesterday.

umm.. excuses.. lessee here... I would've added it, but my computer bjorking itself prevented me. Honest!

I'll edit the post. :blush:

It's still better than the time I proved 1/y = 0 on a calculus assignment.

[Corsair 115]

Someone remind me, has Zlaya posted yet exactly what qualifications and experience he has in regards to aeronautics and aviation?

He sure seems certain of his expertise but has yet to relate even one tiny example of where this expertise comes from, nor has he used that expertise in a detailed rebuttal of what others have posted.

[Slayhamlet]

Someone remind me, has Zlaya posted yet exactly what qualifications and exeperience he has in regards to aeronautics and aviation?

He sure seems certain of his expertise but has yet to relate even one tiny example of where this expertise comes from...

He's qualifications and experience are being a hormone-addled fourteen year old who thinks he knows more than adults.

[Reheat]

Someone remind me, has Zlaya posted yet exactly what qualifications and experience he has in regards to aeronautics and aviation?

He sure seems certain of his expertise but has yet to relate even one tiny example of where this expertise comes from...

MS Flight Sim - The deluxe version.....

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)

[rwguinn]

;3257509']Ack! :jaw-dropp

I knew that, too, seeing as I wrote the final exam for Dynamics yesterday.

umm.. excuses.. lessee here... I would've added it, but my computer bjorking itself prevented me. Honest!

I'll edit the post.

It's still better than the time I proved 1/y = 0 on a calculus assignment.

Well, if y>1.0e6, and it is Tuesday, and you are looking for stress > 3.5e5, then 1/y is effectively zero.
But only on Tuesdays.

[Reheat]

He's qualifications and experience are being a hormone-addled fourteen year old who thinks he knows more than adults.

Ah, that's a better answer than mine.....

[beachnut]

OK, so we finally have a JREF answer right here - a consensus?

Is that it? As long as you all say the same thing, that obviously must be the truth.

Great. I need to put that in my book about the characters here and their statements. This one is the absolute cream of the crop.

Dive would have been impossible. From 7000 feet? In a 757?

Utter joke.
Most pilots would not do a dive of 30 degree to correct being high. No rational pilots would! Darn, you lost again.

The dive is stupid unless you have practiced it. Hani had done turns to loose altitude, it is a natural thing to do, if you flew you would know how ridiculous your pathetic dive idea is for a low time pilot.

Hani did the turn and hit the broad side of a Pentagon, a big barn. You do not even have a coherent idea about what happen on 9/11, do you?

Your said Dick did it. You are wrong about a dive being something Hani would do, you are wrong about Dick, you are wrong about a turn being complex or difficult, you are wrong about a steady 20 degrees of bank, and you are wrong about a steady speed of 290 KIAS.

What but the date do you really know about 9/11 that is correct? And what is your point about the turn that Hani did do just before he hit the Pentagon killing DoD employees at work?

A dive is not impossible, most people think it is a stupid idea for a novice pilot. I call anyone who has not flown THE plane in real life a novice. Although I earned my ATP in a complex multiengine plane I was a novice in the plane with a total of 4.5 hours even after the check ride. I had never flown a light twin before, I think I recovered real well after doing steep turns close to Hani's junk during my short practice flight.

So get to the point! Why did Hani not do your easy dive, and instead do a big 20 mile wide turn before killing people on 9/11? What is the big point. Get to the real woo before you suicide by mod! Please lay your ideas on the line and be great.

[JimBenArm]

Beachnut, you'd have better luck arguing with my dog. She'd understand your points better, and would also be more likely to admit you're correct.
Want me to get her?
Here, Katy! Come talk to the nice man...

[beachnut]

Beachnut, you'd have better luck arguing with my dog. She'd understand your points better, and would also be more likely to admit you're correct.
Want me to get her?
Here, Katy! Come talk to the nice man...
Okay, that would be more rewarding.

[BenBurch]

Zlaya?

Trying to make a commercial aircraft "dirty" at speed? What, are you gonna put the gear down too?

Will the pilots in the room care to opine on if you could manage this and if you could if you would keep your flaps and slats?

[apathoid]

Zlaya?

Trying to make a commercial aircraft "dirty" at speed? What, are you gonna put the gear down too?

Will the pilots in the room care to opine on if you could manage this and if you could if you would keep your flaps and slats?

At, say 400 kts - I think the gear and flaps would survive, but the slats might disappear. The 757 is equipped with flap load relief, meaning the flaps will auto retract is the speed is too great, but I'm not sure that it would prevent a high speed extension in the first place....

I've alluded to TWA 841 several times in this thread and it's yet again another good example here. Capt. "Hoot" Gibson and his F/O were talking about a hypothetical way to increase cruise speed with no altitude or power adjustment by extending the flaps to 1 degree(this setting just adds wing surface area and no appreciable drag) while keeping the slats retracted by pulling all the leading edge actuator power breakers. They decided to give it a try. Unfortunately they did all this while the Flight Engineer was using the lav and when he came back and did his instrument scan, he found some breakers had popped, he reset them and ...yep you guessed it...the slats came down. One of them departed the airplane sending the 727 into a 32,000 fpm spiral dive which fortunately was recovered. The CVR was mysteriously erased, thus the cockpit conversation at the time of the incident was not available. Funny that.

During the dive they extended the flaps the rest of the way, speedbrakes and landing gear with little help. Only the #7 slat left the plane, everything else somehow stayed attached to the airplane even though it went supersonic.

The link to the NTSB report is somewhere is this thread if your interested.

[BenBurch]

Beachnut,

Not only a natural thing to do, my father taught me to do that like our second time up; He had me parallel to the airport against the landing direction and at like 1500 feet, and I had to coordinate a descending turn that was to end at the numbers, lined up and 50 feet altitude. Took me two tries. First time I lost too much altitude and had to abort and climb. The Aeronca Champion was a very forgiving aircraft. And loud.

[BenBurch]

Thanks apathoid. I had heard of that incident.

[Reheat]

Not only a natural thing to do, my father taught me to do that like our second time up; He had me parallel to the airport against the landing direction and at like 1500 feet, and I had to coordinate a descending turn that was to end at the numbers, lined up and 50 feet altitude. Took me two tries. First time I lost too much altitude and had to abort and climb. The Aeronca Champion was a very forgiving aircraft. And loud.

This is another indication that Zlaya is lying about having a Private Pilot's License (which was a belated claim). Part of the training of every pilot whether he be military or civilian is a descending turn.

Since "what goes up must come down" a descent is required to land. No one that I know teaches student to descend straight ahead particularly in a non-radar environment simply because it is dangerous. Therefore, all students learn to turn and descend at the same time to avoid descending where they can't see into or onto conflicting traffic. No student that I know or have ever heard about learns to do a 30 degree dive.

In addition, the turn to crosswind and the turn to final approach for a typical small airplane traffic pattern is a descending turn. Of course, it's only of 90 degrees, but the duration of the turn is inconsequential as the remainder of a 90 degree to a 360 degree turn is the same principal.

The fact that Zlaya thinks this is a difficult or complex maneuver indicates that he/she has NEVER had formal training. Either that or he/she failed and does not have a license. Of course, thinking that a 30 degree dive is normal is also an indication that this troofer has never done that in a real airplane.

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious to everyone here, but it does need to be on record in the thread.....

[pomeroo]

I estimated my numbers. Can you say 'estimate'? 30 pitch dive was a guess. 15 seconds was a guess. 20 degree bank was a rough estimate. 290 kts was a rough estimate. All based on rough values. But here you are, pretending to 'debunk' me by nitpicking. And even then, it shows that i'm correct.

Again, like a good little blind debunker who desn't even understand the basic concepts i'm trying to convey to him, you just can't communicate. Clunkity Clunk? Does that communicate?

Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk? Clunkity Clunk?

I'm done with you. You are obviously never going to admit that you're dead wrong buddy.

If you as a pilot are finding it harder to dive, than to turn in a spiral and dive, then you, my friend, are one messed up pilot, and i wouldn't trust you to fly my mail.

Clunkity Clunk?


What a hopeless, ineducable dunce you are.

[pomeroo]

You guys are so beyond blind by ignorance that i'm not even going to try to explain one more time that a turn requires much more skill than a dive.

You guys lose, sanity wins.

Good game. I'm not here to stir trouble, i'm here to point out how wrong many of you are, and this thread shows exactly how true this is.

Good job, thanks for playing...


It's mind-boggling. You know nothing about this subject. Experts are attempting to instruct you and you're incapable of learning a thing. You just mindlessly tell them they're wrong and you haven't got a clue. What has happened to our education system?

[Slayhamlet]

Ah, that's a better answer than mine.....

Except for the grammar: "he's" is obviously supposed to be "his". :o

[BenBurch]

It's mind-boggling. You know nothing about this subject. Experts are attempting to instruct you and you're incapable of learning a thing. You just mindlessly tell them they're wrong and you haven't got a clue. What has happened to our education system?

Amen, brother!

Most people know better than to try to school real professionals.

[TjW]

Its FSX, it supports VFR, IFR and anything else a real simulator would.

Furthermore, i've checked the 30 degree nose dive is not beyond parameters for this type of plane. It may be a bit uncomfortable, but sure as hell it's quicker to do than to turn the whole 757 270 degrees around for no reason.

I dont see how breachnut can claim that hanjour did the turn, so that he wouldn't stress the aircraft. Like he was worried about it?

LOL!

I'm not sure why Boeing would include a 30 degree dive in the parameters for a transport category plane, since Federal Aviation Regulations Part 91.307(c) states:
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds -----
(1) a bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) a nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.


So Boeing spending the extra money to engineer and build the airplanes to a 30 degree dive spec would only be usable by the airlines if they were flying them with only crewmembers on board, or if they issued every passenger a parachute.

Neither procedure is particularly profitable, so I have trouble believing that is part of the spec. Feel free to provide materials from Boeing that contradict this.

[BenBurch]

I think that the truther may be suffering from an illusion; When you are taking off in a jetliner, initial climb always makes it appear that the nose is up much farther than it is because your inner ear cannot tell the difference between pitch up and acceleration and because people are not good at estimating angles.

[Reheat]

I'm not sure why Boeing would include a 30 degree dive in the parameters for a transport category plane, since Federal Aviation Regulations Part 91.307(c) states:
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds -----
(1) a bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) a nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.


TjW - Just in case he comes back at you with something tangible (not likely) FAA Regs Part 91 governs General Aviation or it can affect a Scheduled Airline operation WITHOUT passengers. Scheduled Airline Passenger operations (with passengers) are governed by FAA Regs Part 121 or Part 135 in some cases.

However, you can rest assured that this would also apply to 121 Operations, but those would need to be quoted to be totally correct. It may be even more restrictive than Part 91.

[AZCat]

TjW - Just in case he comes back at you with something tangible (not likely) FAA Regs Part 91 governs General Aviation or it can affect a Scheduled Airline operation WITHOUT passengers. Scheduled Airline Passenger operations (with passengers) are governed by FAA Regs Part 121 or Part 135 in some cases.

However, you can rest assured that this would also apply to 121 Operations, but those would need to be quoted to be totally correct. It may be even more restrictive than Part 91.

I was wondering the same thing myself, but I checked Part 121 (didn't look at 135) and did not find similar statements.

[Gravy]

Every time I see this thread move up the list, I want to cry.

[Insert kittens.]

[AZCat]

Every time I see this thread move up the list, I want to cry.

[Insert kittens.]


Now I feel guilty and unclean, like I've been caught slinging twenties at a donkey show in Tijuana.

[Gravy]

Now I feel guilty and unclean, like I've been caught slinging twenties at a donkey show in Tiajuana.I don't want to know what a Tijuana donkey show is.

[ElMondoHummus]

I don't want to know what a Tijuana donkey show is.


Ok... the "2 girls, 1 cup" thing cured me of Googling anything you sick bastards choose to post. So no, I will not enlighten myself as to this Tijuana donkey thing. Huh uh. Will not. Won't even. :nope:

:D

[AZCat]

Ok... the "2 girls, 1 cup" thing cured me of Googling anything you sick bastards choose to post. So no, I will not enlighten myself as to this Tijuana donkey thing. Huh uh. Will not. Won't even. :nope:

Darn, you guys learn fast. :mad:

[rwguinn]

I have been involved with airplanes since I was a kid living at the end of the runway at Walker AFB in Roswell (giving age away, here). They flew B-36's
My dad loved 'em too, but couldn't afford to fly, so we did model airplanes.
In college, I took lessons--ended up with 36 hours in sailplanes, 22 in Cessna 150's, 15 minutes in a B-25, and 20 minutes in a DC-3. Ran out of money every time.
But I fly Radio Control models. One of the hardest people to teach to fly RC is the "rider scale" pilot.
There is no seat-of-the-pants feel in RC--no positive feedback at all. you move the sticks, and everything is visual--just like the sims available for your computer. There is a world of difference.
Any full-scale pilot can tell immediately that "This ain't gonna work" when he tries to dive (other than an aircraft designed for it, say, an Extra 300 or the like, which is designed as a system to prevent overspeed (prop, aerodynamics, etc)). Control pressures mount as airspeed increases, and just hanging on to the yoke can be a problem, because you are accelerating at gravity loads in the wrong direction--especially if you're under thrust.
So doing something in a sim is a whole lot different than real life. Sims (at home) don't move. Real airplanes do.

[Reheat]

I was wondering the same thing myself, but I checked Part 121 (didn't look at 135) and did not find similar statements.

I hate to resurrect this thread again, but the Statements do need to be correct.

The aerobatic issue is not addressed in either Part 121 or Part 135, so it's my guess is that even tho' Part 91 does not specifically state that it applies to ALL AIRCRAFT, it's very likely that is the FAA's intrepretation.

As if anyone would violate what is common sense anyway.

My apologies to TjW for bringing it up....

[TjW]

TjW - Just in case he comes back at you with something tangible (not likely) FAA Regs Part 91 governs General Aviation or it can affect a Scheduled Airline operation WITHOUT passengers. Scheduled Airline Passenger operations (with passengers) are governed by FAA Regs Part 121 or Part 135 in some cases.

However, you can rest assured that this would also apply to 121 Operations, but those would need to be quoted to be totally correct. It may be even more restrictive than Part 91.

Well, the "No pilot of a civil aircraft" seems pretty inclusive. There is an exception for ATPs instructing in accordance with 61.67.

To tell you the truth, I don't think it's an issue for any real operators. Even the "Vomit Comets" (there's a commercial operation offering zero-gee flights) don't approach 30 degrees nose down.

[beachnut]

I have been involved with airplanes since I was a kid living at the end of the runway at Walker AFB in Roswell (giving age away, here). They flew B-36's
My dad loved 'em too, but couldn't afford to fly, so we did model airplanes.
In college, I took lessons--ended up with 36 hours in sailplanes, 22 in Cessna 150's, 15 minutes in a B-25, and 20 minutes in a DC-3. Ran out of money every time.
But I fly Radio Control models. One of the hardest people to teach to fly RC is the "rider scale" pilot.
There is no seat-of-the-pants feel in RC--no positive feedback at all. you move the sticks, and everything is visual--just like the sims available for your computer. There is a world of difference.
Any full-scale pilot can tell immediately that "This ain't gonna work" when he tries to dive (other than an aircraft designed for it, say, an Extra 300 or the like, which is designed as a system to prevent overspeed (prop, aerodynamics, etc)). Control pressures mount as airspeed increases, and just hanging on to the yoke can be a problem, because you are accelerating at gravity loads in the wrong direction--especially if you're under thrust.
So doing something in a sim is a whole lot different than real life. Sims (at home) don't move. Real airplanes do.
My 30 year old RC is still ripped open, at the wing root, in the Garage, it traveled around the world with me, I wonder where the controller is? But you are right, I could not think in my head to put myself in the cockpit of my model. Flying big jets was easier for me, flying the T-37 and T-38 were easier, and flying the little planes (150/172/182) was more like the model, but I could not fly the model well. How ever, I think a model flyer may be able to fly a real plane well if he used proportional controllers and servos.
Afraid it may be cheaper to rent an occasional hour in a Cessna, than flying RCs for me.
Can my RC do 10 gs loops, it looked like it. Never did figure out how to land the damn thing. But a RC hobby guy could fly it first time, perfect! I could hit trees and rip off wings. Drat.

[Reheat]

Well, the "No pilot of a civil aircraft" seems pretty inclusive.

Duh!!! You're right my glasses need changing (or at least that's my excuse). Apology's again....

[defaultdotxbe]

Ok... the "2 girls, 1 cup" thing cured me of Googling anything you sick bastards choose to post. So no, I will not enlighten myself as to this Tijuana donkey thing. Huh uh. Will not. Won't even. :nope:

:D
yeah, i had to look that up, knowing full well what to expect

i rate it above tubgirl, below goatse



* defaultdotxbe giggles at the knowledge that somebody is gonna end up googling those 2 things

[Zlaya]

At, say 400 kts - I think the gear and flaps would survive, but the slats might disappear.

Do i have to repeat myself, you are wrong.

At 400, gear would fall off, easily. Flaps would hold, so would airbreaks, so your stupid little calculations that somehow claim that a plane would have to go at Mach 120, are just laughable

[Zlaya]

It's mind-boggling. You know nothing about this subject. Experts are attempting to instruct you and you're incapable of learning a thing. You just mindlessly tell them they're wrong and you haven't got a clue. What has happened to our education system?

These 'experts' who have replied to my comments here have shown utter ignorance to the most basic flight manouvers.

Again, you plea to some authority, as if...

You should re-read the garbage your 'experts' are spewing into your face buddy.

[Zlaya]

TjW - Just in case he comes back at you with something tangible (not likely) FAA Regs Part 91 governs General Aviation or it can affect a Scheduled Airline operation WITHOUT passengers. Scheduled Airline Passenger operations (with passengers) are governed by FAA Regs Part 121 or Part 135 in some cases.

However, you can rest assured that this would also apply to 121 Operations, but those would need to be quoted to be totally correct. It may be even more restrictive than Part 91.

Reheat, your arguments are just laughable.

If you are a pilot, i'm Gravy.

<snip>

You still say that dives are easier than turns + dives?

Your arguments are a joke, and i don't have ANY idea how these poor ignorant souls here got ANY clue that you have EVER touched a plane, let alone actually flew - at least based on your INSANE replies to my comments in this post.

Edited for civility. Be more civil.

So go back to Flight School <snip> , and learn the basics all over again. You need it.

EXPERTS!!!!

HAHAH!

[Jonnyclueless]

There goes that poor helpless victim of insults zlaya. Never instigating anything or ever insulting others while providing posts that pretty much do nothing but that...

Time to grow up.

[beachnut]

Reheat, your arguments are just laughable.

If you are a pilot, i'm Gravy.

<snip>

You still say that dives are easier than turns + dives?

Your arguments are a joke, and i don't have ANY idea how these poor ignorant souls here got ANY clue that you have EVER touched a plane, let alone actually flew - at least based on your INSANE replies to my comments in this post.

<snip>

So go back to Flight School <snip>, and learn the basics all over again. You need it.

EXPERTS!!!!

HAHAH!
Reheat is a pilot and he has you pegged as a no fact 9/11 truth failed point maker. Your dive is dumb a dumb idea, and you have zero practical flight experience.

Now that Ron Paul calls your ideas bizarre and you have no clue on flying what will you do at truth link dot com?

You can not even get the airspeed right, or the bank angle right. Wrong on every post. How can you be so poor a pilot? Have you joined p4t yet. You have seen JDX's video yet act dumb about him. Guess you do not know he did the video you saw on the FDR.

How can you get everything about 77 wrong? Have you decided to explain the problems with the ground effect article you disagree with?

[Corsair 115]

At 400, gear would fall off, easily. Flaps would hold, so would airbreaks, so your stupid little calculations that somehow claim that a plane would have to go at Mach 120, are just laughableFirst, they're called speedbrakes, not airbreaks (or airbrakes if you had decided to spell your term correctly).

Second, about the flaps, this (http://www.757.org.uk/limits/lim1.html) page says the following about flap limitations:

Flap limiting speeds, based on structural considerations, are conveniently placarded around the flap position indicator against the relevant setting. Any exceedances of these limits should be recorded in the aircraft Technical Log.

Flap Setting|Limit Speed
Flap 1|240 knots|
Flap 5|220 knots|
Flap 15|210 knots|
Flap 20|195 knots|
Flap 25|190 knots|
Flap 30|162 knots|

This would seem to disagree with your contention that the flaps would be operable at 400 knots.

Can you cite in any official Boeing material what the limitations are on flap, gear, and speedbrake usage? You seem quite certain your statements are correct so you must have some support in Boeing documentation for thinking so.

[funk de fino]

OK, so we finally have a JREF answer right here - a consensus?

Is that it? As long as you all say the same thing, that obviously must be the truth.

Great. I need to put that in my book about the characters here and their statements. This one is the absolute cream of the crop.

Dive would have been impossible. From 7000 feet? In a 757?

Utter joke.

You keep a book on people on here? Now, thats disturbing, maybe this is where you got your 30 deg limits from also, your little note book full of imaginary stories and friends

[Burrell]

First, they're called speedbrakes, not airbreaks (or airbrakes if you had decided to spell your term correctly).

Second, about the flaps, this (http://www.757.org.uk/limits/lim1.html) page says the following about flap limitations:



This would seem to disagree with your contention that the flaps would be operable at 400 knots.

Can you cite in any official Boeing material what the limitations are on flap, gear, and speedbrake usage? You seem quite certain your statements are correct so you must have some support in Boeing documentation for thinking so.

I thought I would quote this in case Zlaya missed it.
I look forward to seeing the all the data from Boeing on which his/her argument is based and not just a few quotes.

[Gravy]

Zlaya's also missing that it was from 8,000 feet, not 7,000.

[apathoid]

First, they're called speedbrakes, not airbreaks (or airbrakes if you had decided to spell your term correctly).

Second, about the flaps, this (http://www.757.org.uk/limits/lim1.html) page says the following about flap limitations:



This would seem to disagree with your contention that the flaps would be operable at 400 knots.

Can you cite in any official Boeing material what the limitations are on flap, gear, and speedbrake usage? You seem quite certain your statements are correct so you must have some support in Boeing documentation for thinking so.

You're right. If anything, Zlaya has it precisely backwards. Having spent much of my working life in the cockpit of a 757, I noticed more than once what the gear limits are on the 757. See below. Its not surprising either, given that the landing gear, and it's supporting structure are the beefiest areas of the airplane.

As to the flaps, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, only 1 slat left TWA 841, a 727, which went supersonic. The 727 flaps when fully extended have a waaaaaay bigger percentage of total wing area, than the 757, which probably have the least of any Boeing model(percentage wise).

Also, like MMO and dive speed, the performance limits don't include the very comfortable safety margins. I mentioned flap load relief earlier, which is designed specifically to keep the flap structure from being damaged by excessive loading. Damage would be done if you flew around at 400 kts with the flaps at 30 degrees, which is the max setting on the 757. I doubt enough damage would occur to rip them clean off, much like the TWA 727.




Do i have to repeat myself, you are wrong.

At 400, gear would fall off, easily. Flaps would hold, so would airbreaks, so your stupid little calculations that somehow claim that a plane would have to go at Mach 120, are just laughable


Lets see your math. Alot of people would be interested in knowing that you've debunked Pythagoras. You've seen ours, point out the errors or admit that you haven't foggiest idea what you're talking about.



757 gear handle photo. (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0908749/L/)

"RETRACT 270 K

EXTEND OR EXTENDED 270 K - .82M"


I've bolded the important part, take .82 mach and add the safety margin, if you get a number less than 400 - show your work.

Any luck finding that source on the 757 being certified for 30 nose down pitch(5th time asking). You didn't just make that up now, did you?

[TjW]

Gee, Zlaya.
If steep dives are a simple, safe maneuver, and descending turns are a complex, difficult maneuver, then :
Why does the FAA want people in airplanes doing steep dives to wear parachutes?
Why is the "overhead break" ( a descending 360 degree turn from pattern altitude ) a standard landing pattern?

It's fairly obvious where you're getting your opinion. A dive is easy in a PC game because the target never leaves the PC screen. A descending turn is difficult -- on a PC game -- because your target does leave the screen and there aren't enough cues to maintain situational awareness.
In real life, both are easy to initiate, but the descending turn gives you a better chance of completing the maneuver under control.

[Cheap Shot]

Nice picture of the Aardvark.

[uk_dave]

It's fairly obvious where you're getting your opinion. A dive is easy in a PC game because the target never leaves the PC screen. A descending turn is difficult -- on a PC game -- because your target does leave the screen and there aren't enough cues to maintain situational awareness.
In real life, both are easy to initiate, but the descending turn gives you a better chance of completing the maneuver under control.

That's CRAZY! What do you think the 'arrows' keys are for??!!1! HAHAHAHA

[BenBurch]

That's CRAZY! What do you think the 'arrows' keys are for??!!1! HAHAHAHA

ASIDE: I've always wondered why aircraft didn't have cameras looking aft towards each wing; Seems to me that there have been accidents where such a view might have made a difference, and the cost of the system would be low (as these things go, of course.)

[DGM]

ASIDE: I've always wondered why aircraft didn't have cameras looking aft towards each wing; Seems to me that there have been accidents where such a view might have made a difference, and the cost of the system would be low (as these things go, of course.)
Isn't that what ATC is supposed to do. Watch for potential collisions.

[BenBurch]

Isn't that what ATC is supposed to do. Watch for potential collisions.

Actually I was thinking of assessing the condition of the aircraft. If you see that you've had an engine rip off the wing and that the slats are fully deployed on that wing, you would be able to deploy slats on the other wing and maybe just possibly keep from augering into the ground;

rwgSVhgFm7E

[Reheat]

Actually I was thinking of assessing the condition of the aircraft. If you see that you've had an engine rip off the wing and that the slats are fully deployed on that wing, you would be able to deploy slats on the other wing and maybe just possibly keep from augering into the ground;

I'm surprised no one has addressed these comments earlier... I don't think you understand what happened in this incident. When the engine ripped off of the left wing it damaged hydraulic lines on that wing which allowed the slat on that (left wing) to retract. So, there is a combination of severe asymmetric thrust AND asymmetric drag both occurring at the same time at the worst possible time....on Take-Off. In addition, the Captain (who was flying the aircraft) had several non-functioning instruments due to the damage to the wing. He was missing stall warning and asymmetric slat warning among others. I don't know the Emergency Procedure for Asymmetrical Slats for the DC-10 but, I'm guessing that the crew should have tried to retract the slats. However, they were in a very marginal condition for that procedure and had little time to react. Near rotation/lift off is the worst possible time for something like this to happen. The aircraft will fly on one engine in this situation with no problem, but they likely did not know the slat was damaged and due to the time constraints, I'm not sure they could have done anything about it in time to prevent the accident.

During simulation of their condition afterward ONLY those pilots who knew in advance of the specific problems were able to recover. Those who did not know the specific condition were not able to recover. Hindsight is 20/20, but I doubt that even cameras directed toward the wing would have allowed a successful recovery due to the complicated multiple problems and the limited time to analyze them and take appropriate action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

[Magenta]

Reheat, your arguments are just laughable.

If you are a pilot, i'm Gravy.

<snip>

You still say that dives are easier than turns + dives?

Your arguments are a joke, and i don't have ANY idea how these poor ignorant souls here got ANY clue that you have EVER touched a plane, let alone actually flew - at least based on your INSANE replies to my comments in this post.

Edited for civility. Be more civil.

So go back to Flight School <snip> , and learn the basics all over again. You need it.

EXPERTS!!!!

HAHAH!


[my bolding]

Erm, isn't Zlaya the one saying a dive would have been easier than the descending turn Hanjour performed? :confused:


ETA: Also, if Zlaya really believes that everyone who has replied to him here is lying about their expertise and/or is in "Pentagon denial", he could ask the same questions he has asked here on one of the many aviation forums on the internet.

[HL7442]

Hindsight is 20/20, but I doubt that even cameras directed toward the wing would have allowed a successful recovery due to the complicated multiple problems and the limited time to analyze them and take appropriate action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191



Interestingly enough AA 191 did have a feature which showed on the movie screens in both F/Y cabins live action from a nose gear camera showing the takeoff. This was a popular gimmick for AA in the 1970s.

[BenBurch]

Reheat,

Thanks! I saw that accident happen from a distance. I was driving down West Bartlett Road towards Bartlett and this just happens to be directly in line with the accident site. I saw a huge column of smoke start to rise and as I travelled was not obviously getting any closer to it. By the time I reached Bartlett it was obvious that it was not nearby and that it was very large. I went into the bank and the TV in the waiting area had a reporter saying that an aircraft had crashed at O'Hare and I then knew what it was.

But; I think that even a glance at the wing might have given the pilot a chance; Sometimes we can size up visually what we would have to interpret from instruments with difficulty. If he saw the slats retract before the roll started, maybe he could have stayed in the air.

And I think we can both imagine other situations where visualizing the wing and the tailplanes might be useful.

-Ben

[Magenta]

And I think we can both imagine other situations where visualizing the wing and the tailplanes might be useful.

-Ben


Would have been useful for the British Midlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster) plane that crashed short of East Midlands airport when the wrong engine was shut down. From memory, I think the captain announced that he was shutting down the right engine and though the cabin crew and passengers had seen that it was the left engine that had problems, no one said anything.

[pomeroo]

[my bolding]

Erm, isn't Zlaya the one saying a dive would have been easier than the descending turn Hanjour performed? :confused:


ETA: Also, if Zlaya really believes that everyone who has replied to him here is lying about their expertise and/or is in "Pentagon denial", he could ask the same questions he has asked here on one of the many aviation forums on the internet.



No, he couldn't. That would fall under the broad heading of "research."

[Reheat]

But; I think that even a glance at the wing might have given the pilot a chance; Sometimes we can size up visually what we would have to interpret from instruments with difficulty. If he saw the slats retract before the roll started, maybe he could have stayed in the air.

And I think we can both imagine other situations where visualizing the wing and the tailplanes might be useful.

Sure, there a innumerable things added all the time for increased safety. That's one of the reasons the airplanes are so expensive. If we added enough devices to keep them totally safe for every conceivable contingency they wouldn't be able to fly!

Don't forget there is also such a thing as information overload! That is very real as I have personally been there.

I would rather that $$ be spent (if $$ would help) on what caused the engine to separate in the first place. You know, that kind of thing doesn't happen very often. In fact, I don't recall a similar incident during my lifetime (I'm older than dirt). If the engine had not separated none of the other stuff would have followed.

He reacted very appropriately for the missing engine by going to best single-engine climb speed which was NOT appropriate (not fast enough) for the S L O W L Y retracting slat and the resulting change in lift vector on the left wing. Even with a camera looking at that wing it's debatable if it could have been detected in time. Remember that the stall warning (stick shaker) was inoperative so he didn't know the left was was stalling initially and they were only at about 300' AGL. I'd guess the Captain died not knowing why he couldn't control the airplane. I'm not at all sure that a camera looking at the wing would have helped him. That engine remaining attached (even if failed) would have helped him immensely.

There's an old saying in the fighter pilot community...."Some days you get the bear and some days the bear gets you". Unfortunately for the crew of AA191 and the passengers, the bear got them that day.

[pomeroo]

Reheat, your arguments are just laughable.

If you are a pilot, i'm Gravy.

<snip>

You still say that dives are easier than turns + dives?

Your arguments are a joke, and i don't have ANY idea how these poor ignorant souls here got ANY clue that you have EVER touched a plane, let alone actually flew - at least based on your INSANE replies to my comments in this post.

Edited for civility. Be more civil.

So go back to Flight School <snip> , and learn the basics all over again. You need it.

EXPERTS!!!!

HAHAH!


What a foolish, ineducable child you are.

[Reheat]

Would have been useful for the British Midlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster) plane that crashed short of East Midlands airport when the wrong engine was shut down. From memory, I think the captain announced that he was shutting down the right engine and though the cabin crew and passengers had seen that it was the left engine that had problems, no one said anything.

Aircraft systems knowledge and crew coordination would have likely prevented this one.

[Magenta]

Aircraft systems knowledge and crew coordination would have likely prevented this one.


Yes, I think you're right - adding more bells and whistles is not necessarily the best solution for a lack in other areas.

[Reheat]

Yes, I think you're right - adding more bells and whistles is not necessarily the best solution for a lack in other areas.

There is one thing you never, ever want to happen with aircraft design. Turn loose engineers to have every thing they think is needed without restraint.

That happened with the F-111D model. It wasn't long after that the AF went to the SPO concept.

[Magenta]

There is one thing you never, ever want to happen with aircraft design. Turn loose engineers to have every thing they think is needed without restraint.

That happened with the F-111D model. It wasn't long after that the AF went to the SPO concept.


SPO? I just looked at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-111). The F-111D is described as "the most capable (and user-friendly) version of the aircraft when everything functioned, but that was rare before the 1980s".

BTW, thank you for your posts on this thread. I've learned a lot of things I would not have thought to ask about otherwise.

[Reheat]

SPO?

System Program Office

This is a question/statement that might explain the concept from Col Jeff Reimer of the F-16 SPO

What is the primary function of the F-16 SPO?

The SPO's primary function is to serve the warfighters flying the F-16. The SPO is the interface between the warfighter and the company that develops products for them. The SPO manages the development, production, modification, and sustainment of the F-16 worldwide fleet. We translate requirements defined by the warfighter into contracts that yield products. Our primary interfaces are with Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, Air Combat Command, United States Air Forces in Europe, Pacific Air Forces, the Air National Guard, the Air Force Reserve, Air Force Materiel Command, the Pentagon, the Air Logistic Centers, and multiple international customers operating the F-16.


I just looked at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-111). The F-111D is described as "the most capable (and user-friendly) version of the aircraft when everything functioned, but that was rare before the 1980s".

An engineer wrote that wiki entry not a pilot. It was the original glass cockpit. Also, it had a lot of useless redundancy and extra systems that added virtually no functionality to the aircraft because they were rarely used. The primary problem with it was the glass cockpit and related avionics. They were not reliable and the entire system was plagued with supply problems. Consequently the operational readiness status was poor. When everything worked it was great, but..... After the 80's it was better, but still not desirable and required a lot of extra time and effort to make it work. The F Model had a conventional instrument panel and radar scope etc. and was vastly superior and infinitely more reliable.

BTW, thank you for your posts on this thread. I've learned a lot of things I would not have thought to ask about otherwise.

You're Welcome. That's why most of us are here, to learn. I learn something new every day from the many experts here. It's not a bad hangout....

ETA: The D model was the ONLY one of the US tactical versions that never saw combat. That ought to tell you something. All others did...A, E, F, and EF. Of course the FB did not see combat either, but that was because it was nuclear only....

[Zlaya]

So before thread gets closed or whatever, let me get this straight.

The consensus by the flight 'experts' in these forums is the following:

Executing a dive in a Boeing 757 from 7000 to 0 feet is more difficult for a poorly trained hijacker to perform than turning the aforementioned 757 270 degrees around, while doing that descent from 7000 feet.

Am i correct, in my basic outline of this thread?

[uk_dave]

So before thread gets closed or whatever, let me get this straight.

The consensus by the flight 'experts' in these forums is the following:

Executing a dive in a Boeing 757 from 7000 to 0 feet is more difficult for a poorly trained hijacker to perform than turning the aforementioned 757 270 degrees around, while doing that descent from 7000 feet.

Am i correct, in my basic outline of this thread?

No, I believe the consensus is that executing a dive and hitting your intended target is much more difficult that executing a slow turn and descent and then hitting your target.

Anyone can dive a plane and hit the ground zlaya, even you. The ground is a very big target.

[MetalPig]

So before thread gets closed or whatever, let me get this straight.

The consensus by the flight 'experts' in these forums is the following:

Executing a dive in a Boeing 757 from 7000 to 0 feet is more difficult for a poorly trained hijacker to perform than turning the aforementioned 757 270 degrees around, while doing that descent from 7000 feet.

Am i correct, in my basic outline of this thread?

I think that's about it. The expert have provided many arguments as to why that is so, but you failed to address any of them.
You have learned nothing, I'm afraid.

[Zlaya]

No, I believe the consensus is that executing a dive and hitting your intended target is much more difficult that executing a slow turn and descent and then hitting your target.

Anyone can dive a plane and hit the ground zlaya, even you. The ground is a very big target.

How do you explain then that your 'slow turn' was at 300 kts, and the pentagon is clearly visible and an easy target in the FDR replay?

You're telling me that turning around is somehow easing the aim, than to just go straight and down? Please explain this whole idea that he would have missed the pentagon?

[Zlaya]

I think that's about it. The expert have provided many arguments as to why that is so, but you failed to address any of them.
You have learned nothing, I'm afraid.

Interesting...

Cool, thank you for you input. I don't see how this is logical and sane, but thank you nonetheless. Do you also concur with uk_dave then?

[uk_dave]

How do you explain then that your 'slow turn' was at 300 kts, and the pentagon is clearly visible and an easy target in the FDR replay?

You're telling me that turning around is somehow easing the aim, than to just go straight and down? Please explain this whole idea that he would have missed the pentagon?

Why does everything about 9-11 have to conform to a 'truthers' game plan?

Are you people unable to comprehend that things don't always go the way you think they should?

Your terrorist is supposed to put the plane into a steep, high speed dive and hang on for dear life as the aircraft becomes harder and harder to control as the forces acting upon it start to remove bits, and then he runs the risk of the plane deviating from the target and of being totally unable to correct this deviation. But in your mind this is more logical because you think he's in a hurry (but you have no proof of this) and you think you can point the nose of that plane at a target from 3000ft up and it will go in a straight line all the way there without any further input from the pilot despite the effect that this dive has on the control surfaces.

You also believe that 9-11 was an 'inside job' so everything is faked anyway. But, of course, typical 'truther' arrogance you think you're privy to the secret of 9-11 because the perps aren't as clever as you and you've spotted the obvious flaw in their plan because they didn't present a story which you would find believable.

Do you ever take a step back from all this and wonder if maybe the fault lays with your perception and your lack of expertise rather than with any inconsistencies or improbabilities in the account of the events of that day?

[Magenta]

No, I believe the consensus is that executing a dive and hitting your intended target is much more difficult that executing a slow turn and descent and then hitting your target.

Anyone can dive a plane and hit the ground zlaya, even you. The ground is a very big target.


That’s what I understood also. The problem is not putting the plane into a dive, but in retaining enough control during the dive to hit a very specific part of the Pentagon (which was Zlaya’s argument for what Hanjour should have done).

How do you explain then that your 'slow turn' was at 300 kts, and the pentagon is clearly visible and an easy target in the FDR replay?

You're telling me that turning around is somehow easing the aim, than to just go straight and down? Please explain this whole idea that he would have missed the pentagon?


I think TjW already addressed this, at least in part:

Gee, Zlaya.
If steep dives are a simple, safe maneuver, and descending turns are a complex, difficult maneuver, then :
Why does the FAA want people in airplanes doing steep dives to wear parachutes?
Why is the "overhead break" ( a descending 360 degree turn from pattern altitude ) a standard landing pattern?

It's fairly obvious where you're getting your opinion. A dive is easy in a PC game because the target never leaves the PC screen. A descending turn is difficult -- on a PC game -- because your target does leave the screen and there aren't enough cues to maintain situational awareness.
In real life, both are easy to initiate, but the descending turn gives you a better chance of completing the maneuver under control.

[Zlaya]

You keep a book on people on here? Now, thats disturbing, maybe this is where you got your 30 deg limits from also, your little note book full of imaginary stories and friends

hell yes. This forum has given me so much material that it's going to take several books.

Especially considering the fact that we have 'experts' here who claim that it was impossible for flight 77 to dive straight into pentagon instead of initiating that stupid waste of time manuever.

Like, i'm still laughing at that, and it'll take a few days to get over just how lame, incorrect and illogical the 'expert' answers were.

[Zlaya]

The problem is... in retaining enough control during the dive to hit a very specific part of the Pentagon

You mean the roof - the big bit that any hijacker would aim for? Instead of the specific, recently renovated, recently re-inforced for just such attacks, almost empty area on the other side of top brass? Logic? "Experts"?

And as far as the argument 'well your sim is not the same thing as real world', is proposterus, and a fallacy.

Look up Flight Simulator X, and look up Hands on Throttle and Stick setup.

Then look at the realism of that simulation.

The plane could have easily dove into the pentagon, without overspeed, by simply pulling back on the throttle, pointing the stick forward, and extending speed breaks if necessary. The whole idea that the plane would not be controllable makes no sense, and i don't understand how the 'experts' have to gall to claim this.

Did you see the FDR recording - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0

You see where the plane is at before the start of the 20 right degree bank?

How is that impossible to hit, because the 'Experts' say so?

[Magenta]

hell yes. This forum has given me so much material that it's going to take several books.

Especially considering the fact that we have 'experts' here who claim that it was impossible for flight 77 to dive straight into pentagon instead of initiating that stupid waste of time manuever.

Like, i'm still laughing at that, and it'll take a few days to get over just how lame, incorrect and illogical the 'expert' answers were.


And will you verify that the information you got here was "lame, incorrect and illogical" by going to an aviation forum and asking the same questions?

[funk de fino]

hell yes. This forum has given me so much material that it's going to take several books.

Very sad, it seems that you can write books while simultaneously showing a reading comprehension problem

Especially considering the fact that we have 'experts' here who claim that it was impossible for flight 77 to dive straight into pentagon instead of initiating that stupid waste of time manuever.

I think you lie. What people are saying is that it is much more difficult to hit the pentagon by putting the aircraft into a situation that would make it fall apart, be almost impossible to control and have a very high probability of missing the target. There is a reason these people are experts. Is there a reason you know better than them? What is your expertise and career history?

I was an electrical and electronic technician on Fastjet fighter aircraft for 12 years, so what makes you think you know better than me for example?

Like, i'm still laughing at that, and it'll take a few days to get over just how lame, incorrect and illogical the 'expert' answers were.

You think the subject matter is funny? You really are a sick little puppy eh?

[Zlaya]

Your terrorist is supposed to put the plane into a steep, high speed dive

why would it have to be such a uncontrollable high speed dive?

You make it sound like he's descending 1,00,000 feet, or even from the moon, and straight down too.

Yea, my UK m8, 7000 feet is really not that high up, for a 757, and losing that altitude without losing control is not too difficult in a 757. If you're in a cessna, yes. In a giant 757, no.

Especially when you consider the fact that if Hanjour just pushed the stick forward, he would have seen the pentagon roof right in front of him.

But no, he has to turn around, because that's all he learned in flight school? Are you serious? Now instead of being this brilliant hijacker, who managed to turn off the transponder, fool the entire US Air Force (probably because of people like 'beachnut' working there) - he's a retard?

These kinds of statements, that are so abundant in this thread, and on this forum are the reason why people doubt 9/11 story.

Will you guys be debunking cheney's fire from today as well? That was accidental i'm sure.

[uk_dave]

And will you verify that the information you got here was "lame, incorrect and illogical" by going to an aviation forum and asking the same questions?

You mean 'Pilots4truth'?

:aaa!

Where'd ya think he got his fantasy from in the first place?

[funk de fino]

You mean the roof - the big bit that any hijacker would aim for? Instead of the specific, recently renovated, recently re-inforced for just such attacks, almost empty area on the other side of top brass? Logic? "Experts"?

Now you are assuming you knew where he was aiming

And as far as the argument 'well your sim is not the same thing as real world', is proposterus, and a fallacy.

Stundied, second day in a row, thanks

Look up Flight Simulator X, and look up Hands on Throttle and Stick setup.

Then look at the realism of that simulation.

Its a PC game

The plane could have easily dove into the pentagon, without overspeed, by simply pulling back on the throttle, pointing the stick forward, and extending speed breaks if necessary. The whole idea that the plane would not be controllable makes no sense, and i don't understand how the 'experts' have to gall to claim this

The plane would still have increased in speed. It makes no sense to you because you have no common sense.

[Zlaya]

1. showing a reading comprehension problem
2...much more difficult to hit the pentagon by putting the aircraft into a situation that would make it fall apart, be almost impossible to control and have a very high probability of missing the target.
3. You think the subject matter is funny?

Now here we have a perfect example of a typical JREF holier than thou response that is based on blind belief into his fellow 'experts' instead of on empirical evidence and common sense. Those big Military Industrial Complex contracts are really dulling your sense of reality...

1. Thank you
2. Why? It's only 7000 feet up. You're not descending from the mars. You have speed breaks. You can pull the trottle back, instead of going full throttle. Why is it more difficult to hit a larger target area - the roof, from high on up, than a side of the building?
3. Obviously not. I'm laughing at 'expert' responses. See number 1. Who can't read now?

[uk_dave]

why would it have to be such a uncontrollable high speed dive?

You make it sound like he's descending 1,00,000 feet, or even from the moon, and straight down too.

Yea, my UK m8, 7000 feet is really not that high up, for a 757, and losing that altitude without losing control is not too difficult in a 757. If you're in a cessna, yes. In a giant 757, no.

Especially when you consider the fact that if Hanjour just pushed the stick forward, he would have seen the pentagon roof right in front of him.

But no, he has to turn around, because that's all he learned in flight school? Are you serious? Now instead of being this brilliant hijacker, who managed to turn off the transponder, fool the entire US Air Force (probably because of people like 'beachnut' working there) - he's a retard?

These kinds of statements, that are so abundant in this thread, and on this forum are the reason why people doubt 9/11 story.

Will you guys be debunking cheney's fire from today as well? That was accidental i'm sure.

Being paranoid is not something to be proud of.

Tell me zlaya, why didn't the perps just plan a flight which took a direct approach to the side of the pentagon you claim they wanted to hit (you know the one which was reinforced for just such a scenario and...ermmm...collapsed on the day....ahem) and then have their stick forward, nose down, balls to the wall dive into the building from there? That it didn't hit the centre of the pentagon would be explained away by us 'gubmint apologists' as the inability of the 'fake' terrorist to control the plane during the dive, but at least some kid on the internet isn't then going to reveal the secret of the deception after a couple of hours playing with his ms flight sim, right?

In your mind, are the perps really that stupid and are you really that clever?

[Magenta]

You mean 'Pilots4truth'?

:aaa!

Where'd ya think he got his fantasy from in the first place?


Aargh! That wasn't what I meant! :D

[Zlaya]

Now you are assuming you knew where he was aiming

Stundied, second day in a row, thanks

Its a PC game

The plane would still have increased in speed. It makes no sense to you because you have no common sense.

LOL! You are not serious are you? It is not a PC game. It's a PC simulation. Your super smash brothers is a game. This is a simulator - it simulates how a plane would react, to a very detailed level, and i'm telling you - the 'experts' on this board, are absolutely wrong.

The idea that the dive from 7000 feet in a 757 would have been somehow impossible to manage, and aim is preposterous.

Absolutely laughable.

[Zlaya]

And will you verify that the information you got here was "lame, incorrect and illogical" by going to an aviation forum and asking the same questions?

I sure will, i already have, and my experts are all just laughing away at your experts right now.

[uk_dave]

When you crash in MS Flight Sim, does it hurt (more than your feelings)?

[Zlaya]

Being paranoid is not something to be proud of.

Tell me zlaya, why didn't the perps just plan a flight which took a direct approach to the side of the pentagon you claim they wanted to hit (you know the one which was reinforced for just such a scenario and...ermmm...collapsed on the day....ahem) and then have their stick forward, nose down, balls to the wall dive into the building from there? That it didn't hit the centre of the pentagon would be explained away by us 'gubmint apologists' as the inability of the 'fake' terrorist to control the plane during the dive, but at least some kid on the internet isn't then going to reveal the secret of the deception after a couple of hours playing with his ms flight sim, right?

In your mind, are the perps really that stupid and are you really that clever?

More crazy conspiracy theory ramblings from the UK guy...

Lets stick to the topic -

Dive from 7000 feet in 757 into the pentagon would have been impossible because the plane would either break apart, or be so uncontrollable that it would miss.

yes or no?

[Zlaya]

But in your mind this is more logical because you think he's in a hurry (but you have no proof of this)

I have no proof that this hijacker was in a hurry? Oh ya i just had to reply to this separately.

The guy hijacked a plane.

He's just chillin' not in a hurry? No worries about planes being scrambled, about passing through restricted airspace without permission? Just balls of steel huh?

LOL!:jaw-dropp

[Corsair 115]

Zlaya:

1) Are you going to admit you were in error in post #392 when you claimed that the flaps of a 757 would be operable at a speed of 400 knots? Data was presented showing your assertion to be incorrect.

2) Are you going to present any evidence in from any official aircraft documentation to prove your comments about a 30° pitch down dive being an ordinary action for a 757?

3) Are you going to present anything which relates to the amount of actual flying experience and knowledge you have?

[Zlaya]

Zlaya:

1) Are you going to admit you were in error in post #392 when you claimed that the flaps of a 757 would be operable at a speed of 400 knots? Data was presented showing your assertion to be incorrect.

2) Are you going to present any evidence in from any official aircraft documentation to prove your comments about a 30° pitch down dive being an ordinary action for a 757?

3) Are you going to present anything which relates to the amount of actual flying experience and knowledge you have?

1. No - it is not relevant to the overall message of this thread, and we both know that spec sheets have nothing to do with what's physically possible, versus what they say is safe.
2. No - see number 1 - can you provide some that claims that a 757 would magically fall apart if you pulled a 30 degree dive. Furthermore, don't you understand that a 30 degree was just a rough number i threw out there. It's irrelevant. It make no difference, simply because you guys claim that the plane could not hit the pentagon from 7000 feet up, instead it had to do the whole turn thing.
3. Maybe after a dinner and a movie, but most likely no, i will not.

[funk de fino]

Now here we have a perfect example of a typical JREF holier than thou response that is based on blind belief into his fellow 'experts' instead of on empirical evidence and common sense. Those big Military Industrial Complex contracts are really dulling your sense of reality...

I am an expert I stand by my own findings on this. You have yet to say what your expertise is apart from a PC game.

I am no longer a part of the military and was never part of the American military. Again you jump to conclusions my friend.

1. Thank you

Its OK

2. Why? It's only 7000 feet up. You're not descending from the mars. You have speed breaks. You can pull the trottle back, instead of going full throttle. Why is it more difficult to hit a larger target area - the roof, from high on up, than a side of the building?

The building is the same size but it is easier to hit something when you are in control of the vehicle. The plane will still speed up if you pull back the throttles, theres a little thing called gravity acting on it now. When would Hani have ever practised this manouver in Flight School?


3. Obviously not. I'm laughing at 'expert' responses. See number 1. Who can't read now?

Experts responses to a serious matter. Its no laughing matter.

[funk de fino]

I have no proof that this hijacker was in a hurry? Oh ya i just had to reply to this separately.

Do you have proof then? Was he full throttle all the way? Did he know there were fighters after him? Did he know that there was no precedent of a shootdown order?

You assume too much

The guy hijacked a plane.

One of 4 hijacked that day. Well done you got something correct.

He's just chillin' not in a hurry? No worries about planes being scrambled, about passing through restricted airspace without permission? Just balls of steel huh?

What speen was he doing in the FDR video then zlaya? Did he go balls out all the way? If not why not?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E2DF133FF932A15755C0A9649C8B 63


LOL!:jaw-dropp

Were you looking in the mirror at this point?

[Zlaya]

When would Hani have ever practised this manouver in Flight School?

Yes, descending was his worst subject - that and landings huh? He always had to descend by taking a 20 degree bank, instead of just actually going straight and descending, right? Yet he had a Commercial Pilot License?

How did he get that if he was so bad at descending?

Furthermore, why does everyone here keep claiming a plane would somehow be uncontrollable? It would be perfectly controllable. It's only 7000 feet.

If you get too fast, you have speed breaks. You can actually control your descent rate very nicely - but i know, since the resident 'experts' here are always 100% right, and i'm just a loony tin hat wearing twoofer who knows nothing, i'm always wrong.

Yes, this brilliant idiot, smart , stupid hijacker who could not fly yet who had a commercial pilot license, and who could not descend but who could turn AND descend at the same time is one piece of work...

[funk de fino]

1. No - it is not relevant to the overall message of this thread, and we both know that spec sheets have nothing to do with what's physically possible, versus what they say is safe.

You were shown to be wrong. How do you gauge what is physically possible in your PC game by the way?

2. No - see number 1 - can you provide some that claims that a 757 would magically fall apart if you pulled a 30 degree dive. Furthermore, don't you understand that a 30 degree was just a rough number i threw out there. It's irrelevant. It make no difference, simply because you guys claim that the plane could not hit the pentagon from 7000 feet up, instead it had to do the whole turn thing.

So when you said you had checked and had a source you were indeed lying?

Nice one, now everyone knows you are a liar. I hope you are proud?


3. Maybe after a dinner and a movie, but most likely no, i will not.

Have you had a job of any type?

[funk de fino]

Yes, descending was his worst subject - that and landings huh? He always had to descend by taking a 20 degree bank, instead of just actually going straight and descending, right? Yet he had a Commercial Pilot License?

So part of flight school training is to push the stick forward and dive 7000ft at 30 degrees into the ground is it? I do hope you know you will need to show me this is part of his training? Have you ever been in a commercial jet and had the pilot dive at 30 degrees? I doubt you have ever been in a plane full stop.

How did he get that if he was so bad at descending?

eh? He misjudged his descent, so what, he managed to recover and hit his supposed target

Furthermore, why does everyone here keep claiming a plane would somehow be uncontrollable? It would be perfectly controllable. It's only 7000 feet.

In your stupid little PC game maybe

If you get too fast, you have speed breaks. You can actually control your descent rate very nicely - but i know, since the resident 'experts' here are always 100% right, and i'm just a loony tin hat wearing twoofer who knows nothing, i'm always wrong.

Speed brakes overcome the effects of gravity do they? I think you better tell NASA that one. They could use them to fake moon landings.


Yes, this brilliant idiot, smart , stupid hijacker who could not fly yet who had a commercial pilot license, and who could not descend but who could turn AND descend at the same time is one piece of work...

Argument from contradiction? Never seen that attempted before.

[dbalsdon]

I've just read the first 302 posts in this thread, and I can't really handle any more.

[Magenta]

I sure will, i already have, and my experts are all just laughing away at your experts right now.


No doubt you'll be posting a link to the relevant thread sometime soon, or are we supposed to take your word for this?

2. No - see number 1 - can you provide some that claims that a 757 would magically fall apart if you pulled a 30 degree dive. Furthermore, don't you understand that a 30 degree was just a rough number i threw out there. It's irrelevant. It make no difference, simply because you guys claim that the plane could not hit the pentagon from 7000 feet up, instead it had to do the whole turn thing.


Uh, now you say 30 degrees is just a rough number you threw out? Isn't the issue here maintaining control of the plane during the dive, and isn't the steepness of the dive kind of relevant? Are you sure about the 7,000ft? Coz it looked like over 8,000ft at the beginning of the video you posted.

[Corsair 115]

1. No - it is not relevant to the overall message of this thread, and we both know that spec sheets have nothing to do with what's physically possible, versus what they say is safe. Evasion noted. You're caught making a mistake and you simply can't admit it.

2. No - see number 1 - can you provide some that claims that a 757 would magically fall apart if you pulled a 30 degree dive. Furthermore, don't you understand that a 30 degree was just a rough number i threw out there. So you admit you are just making stuff up without understanding the full import of what you are saying?

It's irrelevant. It make no difference, simply because you guys claim that the plane could not hit the pentagon from 7000 feet up, instead it had to do the whole turn thing. Obfuscation noted. The point is not that it was impossible but rather it would have required exceptional piloting skill. It would have required far more skill than making a basic descending turn.

Hint: read up on the difference in skill required to conduct dive bombing versus glide bombing.

3. Maybe after a dinner and a movie, but most likely no, i will not.Refusal noted. This only adds credence to the theory that you in fact have little or know genuine knowledge of aviation and aeronautics. This theory is supported when you reject information from others in this thread who do have such genuine knowledge and refuse to acknowledge you made basic mistakes in facts, e.g. maximum speed at which the flaps can be deployed and operable.

[uk_dave]

I have no proof that this hijacker was in a hurry? Oh ya i just had to reply to this separately.

The guy hijacked a plane.

He's just chillin' not in a hurry? No worries about planes being scrambled, about passing through restricted airspace without permission? Just balls of steel huh?

LOL!:jaw-dropp

You mean he's in a hurry to stop someone killing him before....he ...kills.... himself?

LOL indeed. :wink8:

[jsiv]

He flew the way he did because it was what he was most comfortable with and thought had the greatest chance of succeeding. Simple.

I didn't read the whole thread, so I don't know if he already answered this, but... Zlaya, what exactly is it you believe happened? Was the plane remote controlled? Flown by CIA agents? Never really existed and the FDR was faked? Why would the conspirators choose a maneuver that is (according to you) illogical and hard to carry out? Are they subtle clues left by a whistleblower with very weak lungs? I just don't get it. Why is everything they fake full of these little clues that can only be deciphered by laymen on the internet?

[T.A.M.]

Zlaya has no experts of his own...give me a break. If he had "experts" of his own that contradicted anything said here, he would have the "quote" function and "link" function worn out.

He is behaving, as he has from the start, like a child. His arguments are illogical, without facts, and he knows this. He is now arguing for the sake of getting a rise out of people, challenging credentials, mocking experts, it his tactic to bait you into anger filled responses. For the most part people here are intelligent enough to see this for what it is.

While not perfect, the "ignore" function works marvelous for people like him.

TAM:)

[gumboot]

Yes, descending was his worst subject - that and landings huh? He always had to descend by taking a 20 degree bank, instead of just actually going straight and descending, right? Yet he had a Commercial Pilot License?

How did he get that if he was so bad at descending?

Furthermore, why does everyone here keep claiming a plane would somehow be uncontrollable? It would be perfectly controllable. It's only 7000 feet.

If you get too fast, you have speed breaks. You can actually control your descent rate very nicely - but i know, since the resident 'experts' here are always 100% right, and i'm just a loony tin hat wearing twoofer who knows nothing, i'm always wrong.

Yes, this brilliant idiot, smart , stupid hijacker who could not fly yet who had a commercial pilot license, and who could not descend but who could turn AND descend at the same time is one piece of work...


Just a minor nitpick first, at the beginning of the turn AA77 was at 8,500ft, not 7,000ft. This happened when AA77 was 10km from the Pentagon, traveling at 339KT.

Assuming constant airspeed, AA77 would have reached the Pentagon 57 seconds later.

What we can determine from that is, in order for Hani Hanjour to have hit the Pentagon successfully (and for a moment assuming a constant airspeed) he would have needed to descend at a rate of 8,500ft per minute. That's quite a feat, but not impossible.

The problem is, of course, that aircraft don't retain a constant speed when you point their nose at the ground - they accelerate. Acceleration results in greater lift, which requires you to point the nose into the ground even harder. It also gives you less time, which means you need a much higher rate of descent.

You run the very real risk of pushing the aircraft to it's maximum certified airspeed, and if you go too far beyond that there's a risk that the aircraft will become more difficult to control. You might miss your target. Not to mention that a descent like that would pose a very real risk of causing the pilot to "red out" - a phenomenon much like a black out, but caused by blood rushing into the brain.

The fact that Hani Hanjour chose to make the turn he did tells us a number of things:

1. He was a confident enough pilot to feel he would be able to find the Pentagon again after turning away from it.
2. He was a competent enough pilot to understand the dilemma I described above.
3. He was a competent enough pilot to know he needed to bleed off speed and altitude to ensure his impact was a success.

At the same time, the details of the maneouver - the constant yoke inputs, the fluctuating speed and rate of descent, etc - indicate a pilot who was not experienced in flying the particular model of aircraft in question, and had a lack of precision which is required of commercial airline pilots.

So in conclusion, the final turn made by AA77 is evidence that the pilot on board had poor practical skills but reasonable theoretical piloting skills and knowledge of aerodynamics. Fits Hani Hanjour to a tee.

-Gumboot

[TjW]

So before thread gets closed or whatever, let me get this straight.

The consensus by the flight 'experts' in these forums is the following:

Executing a dive in a Boeing 757 from 7000 to 0 feet is more difficult for a poorly trained hijacker to perform than turning the aforementioned 757 270 degrees around, while doing that descent from 7000 feet.

Am i correct, in my basic outline of this thread?

Well, before I answer you, let me get something straight:
You contend that you are more qualified to determine the action most likely to result in the hijacked airliner actually impacting the Pentagon than a pilot with a certificate granting the privilege of flying for hire issued by the FAA?
Does that about sum it up?

[beachnut]

More crazy conspiracy theory ramblings from the UK guy...

Lets stick to the topic -

Dive from 7000 feet in 757 into the pentagon would have been impossible because the plane would either break apart, or be so uncontrollable that it would miss.

yes or no?
Sure, who flew 77, you said Dick did it. Wrong
You said steady turn. Wrong
You said steady speed. Wrong

We have a trained pilot doing what trained pilots do, a descending turn and lining up on his target. Sorry the terrorist was not trained to do DIVE bombing. You are wrong again.

This is not about diver bombing being stupid. Hani did a turn, you have no point. Zero facts, zero evidence. You have not even said what it means.

You have not learned that all pilots would loose attitude in a turn, or plan better in the first place to hit the side of the Pentagon.

Based on the facts we have found no pilot who decides to hit his target from 30 degrees nose down in a maneuver he has never practiced. Extreme dive Zlaya ignores reason and pushes forward to conclusions of nothing. Fact is, 20 to 30 degrees of bank are little easy turn angles, the more difficult turns are level steep turns at 45 degrees, and 60 degrees of bank. Descents are 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 degree events in half or quarter degree adjustments to get a precise descents, with the proper configuration on the plane. 10 and 15 degree descents in airliners are emergencies. Only kids with no practical knowledge of flying who use computer aircraft simulators would attempt a 30 degree nose low dive in a REAL airplane.


Do you understand a 30 degree bank turn is normal; a 30 degree pitch down is NOT normal (airliner). Only in aerobatic aircraft and special manuvers do we reach 30 degrees nose low. Even in an EXTREME emergency the maximum pitch down in an airliner would be 15 to 10 degrees sustained.

[beachnut]

Yes, descending was his worst subject - that and landings huh? He always had to descend by taking a 20 degree bank, instead of just actually going straight and descending, right? Yet he had a Commercial Pilot License?What? No descending was not his worst subject. Where do you get this hearsay, from, how can you just make up statements without sources or evidence? Do you lack a basic understanding of flying. Lading is done at 2.5 to 3 degree for the approach then a landing flair, there is not practice of a 30 degree nose down descent in pilot training, planes will over speed, they do not practice that.

How did he get that if he was so bad at descending? Yes he actually got his FAA papers, so he was good enough to pass once. You have no proof he could not land. His instructor said he could do 9/11 easy.

Furthermore, why does everyone here keep claiming a plane would somehow be uncontrollable? It would be perfectly controllable. It's only 7000 feet. Sorry, even on your own screen shot you plane crashed and was in OVERSPEED. Debunking yourself!

If you get too fast, you have speed breaks. You can actually control your descent rate very nicely - but i know, since the resident 'experts' here are always 100% right, and i'm just a loony tin hat wearing twoofer who knows nothing, i'm always wrong.In an 30 degree nose down descent the speed brakes will not slow you down, they will slow down the acceleration as you pass into OVERSPEED. In an airliner you will reach MACH 1 and more if you hold the nose down to 30 degrees for a short time. You proved it on you screen shot which is clearly in OVERSPEED. Remember airline pilots do not practice 30 degrees nose low dives, nor did Hani. Therefore the only maneuver he knew to get on a normal decent was a altitude loosing turn. A simple 15 to 41 degree banked turn so he would come back to where he was after the turn but 5000 feet lower! Proof that Hani was flying and not some crackerjack dive bomber for the NWO.

Yes, this brilliant idiot, smart , stupid hijacker who could not fly yet who had a commercial pilot license, and who could not descend but who could turn AND descend at the same time is one piece of work...Hani could fly, you got that wrong, and he descended fine in the turn and on the approach to the Pentagon. So you have failed to understand 9/11 and now you are wrong on most of this post.

People are giving you real information and you bring up false information. Why are you not reading the past posts people spent time to explain a few things so you will understand 9/11 truth is making lies. You have seen the p4t video where you go your ideas, you have zero practical knowledge on flying. Why are you so wrong about flying things? And what is your over all point? What are your ideas on ground effect after making fun of an article by experts? Why are you anti-knowledge?

All you want to say is "Hani could not fly". Too bad he did fly and we have statements from flight instructors who agree he could do the flying required on 9/11. I am an Air Force instructor and I agree. Airline Captains in the 757/767 have agreed Hani could do it. Most pilots, including myself, agree the flying on 9/11 was simple, and a kid off the street could do it.

So when is the last time you flew as PIC, how many hours do you have as Pilot in command? I first flew solo in 1973, I flew my jet supersonic in 1975, I flew my first 300,000 pound aircraft in 1976. In the large jet we never exceed 15 degrees nose low! As you found out in FSX, you crashed when you held the Jet at 30 degrees nose low for 7000 feet altitude loss. If not, you exceed the g limits and have bent your plane.

No, a 30 degree nose low dive is not impossible, but no one can practice them in an airliner or trainer that Hani used. This is why your pointless point is wrong, you do not understand that Hani did a turn to loose attitude. A complete turn, your double spirl which you mean a double U turn, returns Hani to the same approximate place he was at a lower attitude. This simple stuff. If he was worried about wasting 2 minutes, he should have planned better! It seems Hani was a MUCH better pilot than you think you are.

[HawksFan]

Why do I get the feeling that Zlaya thinks that that old Bugs Bunny cartoon where he hits the brakes and the airplane hangs in the air is actually possible? :D

I have FlightSim X. It's does a pretty good job for a 70 dollar PC game, especially at scenery display, but it isn't any where near real life as far as flight dynamics and airframe stresses. I know this and I'm not even a pilot.

[Reheat]

Why do I get the feeling that Zlaya thinks that that old Bugs Bunny cartoon where he hits the brakes and the airplane hangs in the air is actually possible? :D

Hey, that's it. That's why he/she referred to "airbreaks" earlier, you know, like in a big truck! :boggled:

[Darth Rotor]

Okay pilots tell me what grade you get for a 30 degree bank turn if you do what I showed?. Not bad for rolling in and out but not exactly 20 degrees.
If that was the first ever instrument flight under the bag, he'd get a 2, if anything beyond that, a zero, a visit to the flight surgeon to see if he was aeronautically adaptable, and a visit to the sim building to work on basic airwork before he ever got another flight in an aircraft.

Or, the guy had a boost failure in a boost assisted flight control system on his aircraft, and was fighting the controls.

With no flight control malfunctions, on any flight beyond the first that is

Pink Slip.

As to the rest, I have rarely encountered anyone as willfully ignorant as Zyala has chosen to be in this alleged discussion.

DR

[pomeroo]

I sure will, i already have, and my experts are all just laughing away at your experts right now.


We have noticed that you are an extremely ignorant kid. You don't have any experts.

[beachnut]

We have noticed that you are an extremely ignorant kid. You don't have any experts.
I think JDX and his pilots who can not hit buildings in simulators are his team of dive bombing experts! Funny stuff.

[HL7442]

Anyone notice Zlaya hasn't said anything factual. If anything he she it simply throws insults and repeats the same thing about diving from 7.000 feet. BORING!!!!!!!!!


On a side note concerning little Zlaya's game, notice the screen shot carefully, the altitude is lslightly ess than 6,500 feet and the airspeed is already pushing above 400kts. Any guesses as to the airspeed at 1,000 feet?

[Burrell]

Zlaya, would you care to name the experts you have consulted? Are they willing to support your point of view? Are they also willing to join the forum here to discuss these matters?

Also, I would have to disagree with you on the PC Simulator argument.

Soem examples. Niki Lauda piloted a simulator after a crash involving one of his aircraft. The simulator indicated that he would have been able to fly the plane with one wing missing. This is, of course, not possible in reality.

I have equally spent many a formative year on a BBC Micro Computer simulation where I have broken the lap record at Silverstone in a Formula Three Racing Car (down force generated by an inverse ground effect so technically this is not totally off topic) but I am not, and never will be, "The Stig" (UK reference).

Are you willing to concede that the conditions (such as g-force) where you have your PC / Laptop are not the same as those in an aircraft in flight?

[BenBurch]

... That engine remaining attached (even if failed) would have helped him immensely. ...

Well, now, THAT subject I know all about. :)

On that AC there is a large diameter pin that provides the principle attachment of the engine to the wing.

This pin is designed to fail under certain circumstances when an out-of-balance engine in failure would otherwise threaten the wing spar.

And indeed, had the engine been in failure, and left the wing at that point in the flight likely it would have been recoverable.

But the engine that left the AC was not in failure, and it was producing thrust. And it continued to produce thrust briefly after leaving the wing. Hence it was able to pull ahead of the wing enough to bounce up and over it, damaging the aircraft. (I recall there was some other damage attributable to the pin failing under thrust, but its been so long the details are fuzzy.)

So, why did this pin fail as it did? Wasn't it able to cope with the thrust plus gravity loads?

Well, this pin couldn't because it had already been damaged.

It seems that the AA Maintenance staff in Chicago had adopted an unapproved shortcut to the process of changing out an engine that put tremendous stress on the pin and resulted in enough damage that the take off stress broke it.

So, the solution wasn't an engineering change to make the pin stronger - it was built strong enough to fail only when it was supposed to; The solution was to never, ever cut corners on approved maintenance procedures.

[HawksFan]

On a side note concerning little Zlaya's game, notice the screen shot carefully, the altitude is lslightly ess than 6,500 feet and the airspeed is already pushing above 400kts. Any guesses as to the airspeed at 1,000 feet?

For which piece of the airplane?

[BenBurch]

Aircraft systems knowledge and crew coordination would have likely prevented this one.

I believe there was also a cross-wiring issue here. It was a new AC and there was a wiring error in the fire detection system.

[BenBurch]

I have no proof that this hijacker was in a hurry? Oh ya i just had to reply to this separately.

The guy hijacked a plane.

He's just chillin' not in a hurry? No worries about planes being scrambled, about passing through restricted airspace without permission? Just balls of steel huh?

LOL!:jaw-dropp

No worries at all!

That pilot's time in the air was limited only by his fuel and his desire to have as much of that fuel as possible delivered to the target.

He also knew that the Pentagon has no air defense. (Still does not as I understand it.)

He had as much time as he needed to get it right, and sadly he did.

He knew (and you should know) that it was not legal for anybody except the President DIRECTLY to issue orders to intercept and shoot down a domestic airliner.

[Reheat]

No worries about planes being scrambled, about passing through restricted airspace without permission? Just balls of steel uh?


I just noticed another FACTUAL error by our resident troofer. AA77 was never in the restricted airspace to which you're referring. The Pentagon is not inside P-56 (contrary to the bogus map shown on many troofer sites).

In fact, there are only two things you have correct in this entire thread. One is the date of the attacks and the other is in reference to when you call yourself an ignorant troofer.

[uk_dave]

He knew (and you should know) that it was not legal for anybody except the President DIRECTLY to issue orders to intercept and shoot down a domestic airliner.


Personally I doubt that this was even a consideration to the terrorists.

They're given a mission to strike at the heart of the decadent 'great satan'. Those missions are to hit their designated targets. Where and how they hit them is not likely to be a major consideration, they just have to do it.

Should they be intercepted and shot down, well, so be it. They will still have succeeded by forcing the 'great satan' to kill it's own people. They will be martyrs.

But if they take a stupid risk, lose their cool and end up ploughing their aircraft into the ptomac (can a river be ploughed? nevermind) or they just crash into the pentagon car park, while this is still a victory for them (they managed to hijack civilian aircraft and caught 'the great satan' napping) it's not the best result for their efforts.

The terrorists appear to have kept their cool, corrected initial mistakes and managed to hit their targets. Score one for them.

[Zlaya]

On a side note concerning little Zlaya's game, notice the screen shot carefully, the altitude is lslightly ess than 6,500 feet and the airspeed is already pushing above 400kts. Any guesses as to the airspeed at 1,000 feet?


Yea, and if you notice, the throttle is at 100 percent at that point, and speed breaks are not engaged.

Again, you fail to prove that the plane would fall apart, it's absolutely ludicrous suggestion.

But then again, "experts" are telling me here that Flight Sim X is not really a simulation, its just a game.

Listen to the experts. They will not lie to you. They don't have any vested interest in 'debunking' me regardless of how illogical they are.

I on the other hand, i'm an evil nutcase twofer who is just nuts, and crazy, and all that stuff.

You guys are sane tho. Claiming that the turn was easier than simply diving forward, and that somehow the plane would be hard to control while descending, is a sane suggestion.

Everyone reading this tread with an open mind and open eyes can see just how laughable this is, but you know, not too many such people troll these boards...

The "Experts" have proven themselves to be an absolute joke in this thread.

Especially the whole "Hanjour wasn't in the hurry thing"

The utter pinnacle of lunacy. Thank you guys for a great laugh, but i got all my answers here i needed. I really appreciate how some of you have shown your utter amazing ignorance and closed mindedness when it comes to Pentago discussions.

Good work ladies!

[DGM]

Yea, and if you notice, the throttle is at 100 percent at that point, and speed breaks are not engaged.

Again, you fail to prove that the plane would fall apart, it's absolutely ludicrous suggestion.

But then again, "experts" are telling me here that Flight Sim X is not really a simulation, its just a game.

Listen to the experts. They will not lie to you. They don't have any vested interest in 'debunking' me regardless of how illogical they are.

I on the other hand, i'm an evil nutcase twofer who is just nuts, and crazy, and all that stuff.

You guys are sane tho. Claiming that the turn was easier than simply diving forward, and that somehow the plane would be hard to control while descending, is a sane suggestion.

Everyone reading this tread with an open mind and open eyes can see just how laughable this is, but you know, not too many such people troll these boards...

The "Experts" have proven themselves to be an absolute joke in this thread.

Especially the whole "Hanjour wasn't in the hurry thing"

The utter pinnacle of lunacy. Thank you guys for a great laugh, but i got all my answers here i needed. I really appreciate how some of you have shown your utter amazing ignorance and closed mindedness when it comes to Pentago discussions.

Good work ladies!
Oh no he/she called us ladies. I'm guessing your in you early teens?

[pomeroo]

Yea, and if you notice, the throttle is at 100 percent at that point, and speed breaks are not engaged.

Again, you fail to prove that the plane would fall apart, it's absolutely ludicrous suggestion.

But then again, "experts" are telling me here that Flight Sim X is not really a simulation, its just a game.

Listen to the experts. They will not lie to you. They don't have any vested interest in 'debunking' me regardless of how illogical they are.

I on the other hand, i'm an evil nutcase twofer who is just nuts, and crazy, and all that stuff.

You guys are sane tho. Claiming that the turn was easier than simply diving forward, and that somehow the plane would be hard to control while descending, is a sane suggestion.

Everyone reading this tread with an open mind and open eyes can see just how laughable this is, but you know, not too many such people troll these boards...

The "Experts" have proven themselves to be an absolute joke in this thread.

Especially the whole "Hanjour wasn't in the hurry thing"

The utter pinnacle of lunacy. Thank you guys for a great laugh, but i got all my answers here i needed. I really appreciate how some of you have shown your utter amazing ignorance and closed mindedness when it comes to Pentago discussions.

Good work ladies!


For obvious reasons, you avoided a question that is on many minds. You are an extremely ignorant kid. You are attempting to argue with real pilots and avionics techs. Why would they know less than you about their professions? What is the source of your knowledge?

[cyclonic]

No worries at all!


He also knew that the Pentagon has no air defense. (Still does not as I understand it.)

.

How could he know for sure? if he thought there were anti aircraft missiles on the roof, his flight path makes sense.

[DGM]

Zlaya:
Actually any lurkers on this site can look up the information that has been presented. The only thing other than your opinion that you have presented was a claim that a 30 deg dive was within limits. Now you have admitted that you lied about that so why should anyone take anything you say seriously. You also have shown no practical experience with aircraft other than FSX.

Bottom line, You fail!

[DGM]

How could he know for sure? if he thought there were anti aircraft missiles on the roof, his flight path makes sense.
Good point!

Come in low the missiles would be useless.

[beachnut]

Good work ladies!
I have four daughter who each makes more money than you do, and they can each fly a jet better than Hani, or you. In that order. So next time you want to make a sexist comment, remember you are the one who can not research anything on 9/11 and come up with a rational conclusion, and you are the one who has to complement us all saying we are ladies. I wish I was as good as my daughters are in the things I am lacking. You will never be as smart, or as good in general as my daughter, all ladies until you learn how to think rationally.

Hani did speed, below 10,000 feet! Speed limit is 250 KIAS, so was Hani in a hurry, or just speeding? Gee he was doing 130 in a 70 mph zone when he hit the Pentagon. And in general he was speeding, like doing 60 mph in a 50 mph zone (you do not understand flying, so the speeds are camparisons to things you could do and get a ticket doing). I would call your argument on being in a hurry stupid, you can not make the plane go faster unless you do the stupid thing like OVERSPEED in a high speed dive at 30 degrees nose low (like you did), things only a real dumb pilot would do. The terrorist pilots were novice, not stupid on flying like your posts prove; and they actually spent money flying in real planes, not sitting on a computer telling real pilots what is. There are some ladies I wish I could fly as well as! Thanks for the complement. !!!!

[Reheat]

Come in low the missiles would be useless.

Or so he thought. He would have been vulnerable until the last very few seconds for most AA Missiles in use then and today.......

[DGM]

Or so he thought. He would have been vulnerable until the last very few seconds for most AA Missiles in use then and today.......
Either way they win. The remains are going to hit something. That's one problem with a missile defense in a densely populated area.

[BenBurch]

How could he know for sure? if he thought there were anti aircraft missiles on the roof, his flight path makes sense.

For sure, well, nobody can know that in a military installation, but the Pentagon is a very public place, really. And you can see its roof from the air.

[HL7442]

Zlaya's been most entertaining as a twoofer. Deny facts, spin cherry picked articles and present a game as proof. Yeop Zlaya wins a gold "Summa Cum Twoofer" award.
Please Zlaya entertain us some more........:flamed:

[Corsair 115]

Yea, and if you notice, the throttle is at 100 percent at that point, and speed breaks are not engaged. Then why don't you try it again with the speedbrakes deployed. Interesting, I pointed out how to correctly spell the word and you still get it wrong. Here's an easy way to remember the difference: break is when something stops working, while brake slows you down.

Again, you fail to prove that the plane would fall apart, it's absolutely ludicrous suggestion. And you have failed to prove that it wouldn't. So far all we have is your insistence that it wouldn't with nary an official document or quoted expert to back you up.

But then again, "experts" are telling me here that Flight Sim X is not really a simulation, its just a game. Again, if your desktop sim is so perfect, then why do airlines still spend lots of money training their pilots in full-motion, highly sophisticated simulators?

Listen to the experts. They will not lie to you. They don't have any vested interest in 'debunking' me regardless of how illogical they are. Might you list the names of these experts? We've asked you many times to cite the source or sources for your claims and so far you have steadfastly refused to do so.

I on the other hand, i'm an evil nutcase twofer who is just nuts, and crazy, and all that stuff. What's that old saying? The first step in fixing one's problem is to admit one has a problem. Congratulations, you've achieved the first step!

You guys are sane tho. Claiming that the turn was easier than simply diving forward, and that somehow the plane would be hard to control while descending, is a sane suggestion. This is indeed correct. See reply to previous quote.

The "Experts" have proven themselves to be an absolute joke in this thread. Oh well, you were making progress and now you've fallen back into your old habits.

Incidentally, as long as you fail to cite any documentary evidence nor statements from persons you deem to be experts, you have failed to demonstrate anything.

Histrionics on your part does not constitute a rational, reasoned, well-constructed argument. You would do much better providing actual evidence with the relevant sources. Which, incidentally, we're still waiting for after numerous requests.

The utter pinnacle of lunacy. Thank you guys for a great laugh, but i got all my answers here i needed. I really appreciate how some of you have shown your utter amazing ignorance and closed mindedness when it comes to Pentago discussions. See reply above. More bluster and pompousness but no supporting evidence.

Good work ladies!See reply above.

[Magenta]

Everyone reading this tread with an open mind and open eyes can see just how laughable this is, but you know, not too many such people troll these boards...


No, Zlaya. What people can see is behaviour on your part that follows a familiar pattern: evading questions, arguments from personal incredulity, not backing up assertions with evidence, shifting details and a quick resort to immature insults.

You have not explained how the only piece of evidence you have posted (the screen cap from a PC flight simulator) supports your argument.

Despite claiming that you have experts to back you up, you have not produced anything to support this claim.

Despite being asked several times, you have not produced your argument for what you believe did happen that day at the Pentagon, yet you've made over 70 posts on this thread niggling over something that we all agree didn't happen. Why is that?

And to go back to the original subject of this thread, this was your response to the article about ground effect:


Ouch that article is so bad, it makes 9/11 trooooofers seem reasonable and legitimate.


You didn't contribute anything to back up that statement and you've pretty much followed that pattern throughout this thread.

[Magenta]

You're Welcome. That's why most of us are here, to learn. I learn something new every day from the many experts here. It's not a bad hangout....

ETA: The D model was the ONLY one of the US tactical versions that never saw combat. That ought to tell you something. All others did...A, E, F, and EF. Of course the FB did not see combat either, but that was because it was nuclear only....


Thanks, Reheat... and everyone else who contributed thoughtful posts.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Zlaya
Ouch that article is so bad, it makes 9/11 trooooofers seem reasonable and legitimate.
Originally Posted by Magenta
You didn't contribute anything to back up that statement and you've pretty much followed that pattern throughout this thread.

One of the things that keeps bringing me back to this thread is a curiosity as to whether or not Zlaya will ever actually get around to explaining why the article is incorrect.
So far, nada!!!!!! Zlaya's arguement to date has been " it just is ".

[Dave Rogers]

Zlaya's been most entertaining as a twoofer. Deny facts, spin cherry picked articles and present a game as proof. Yeop Zlaya wins a gold "Summa Cum Twoofer" award.

We ought to have a Malcolm Kirkman Trophy for the most rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth truther of the year. Either that, or a Stundies equivalent of the Oscars lifetime achievement awards. Zlaya would definitely be in the running on this thread alone, although the competition from malmoesoldier could be quite hot.

Dave

[Zlaya]

No, Zlaya. What people can see is behaviour on your part that follows a familiar pattern: evading questions, arguments from personal incredulity, not backing up assertions with evidence, shifting details and a quick resort to immature insults.

You have not explained how the only piece of evidence you have posted (the screen cap from a PC flight simulator) supports your argument.

Despite claiming that you have experts to back you up, you have not produced anything to support this claim.

Despite being asked several times, you have not produced your argument for what you believe did happen that day at the Pentagon, yet you've made over 70 posts on this thread niggling over something that we all agree didn't happen. Why is that?

And to go back to the original subject of this thread, this was your response to the article about ground effect:





You didn't contribute anything to back up that statement and you've pretty much followed that pattern throughout this thread.

I thought we were talking about how 'flight experts' here claim that the Hanjour did the turn, because the dive would be impossible to orchestrate from that amazing height of 8 thousand feet.

Oh yea, and also, we've come to the conclusion that Hanjour wasn't in a hurry.

[edit=chillzeroEdited for civility[/edit]

How do you debate someone who refuses to acknowledge the most basic points, such as that a hijacker is probably in a hurry to finish his job.

I mean, come on...

[Mince]

because the dive would be impossible to orchestrate from that amazing height of 8 thousand feet.


Please provide your source for this claim. Do you understand even basic aerodynamics? Or is your source "Loose Change"?

[X]

I like that.

I prove you idiots wrong, in ever point in this thread, and you girls call me names. Dives easier than turns? Dives impossible, can't control the plane? Dive impossible, plane would be too fast? All debunked by yours truly. All you have done is just kick and scream like little kids, and use name calling as your main argument.

Good job. This thread is a fun read.


Did you even read the thread?

I would very much like to see where you "debunked" what has been said.

It seems to me you just selectively ignore/dismiss everything that runs counter to you're preconceived notions, but never provide any actual evidence.

Why, if you are not willing to consider alternative evidence, do you even bother to challenge people with your "theories"?

Do you realize that nearly 3,000 people died? Those people were somebody's mother, father, son, daughter, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece, cousin, friend, spouse, etc.
It was a horrible, horrible thing, and all you can do is argue over niggling little details that you can't be bothered to actually understand, and claim everyone else is blind?


As I said before:
"I have already decided! Don't confuse with the facts!"

[lapman]

I thought we were talking about how 'flight experts' here claim that the Hanjour did the turn, because the dive would be impossible to orchestrate from that amazing height of 8 thousand feet. From what I've read is that all of us who have actual flight training know that it is easier to hit the target by doing the turn than by diving. That's why we do a go-around when coming in too high for a landing instead of diving for the runway.

Oh yea, and also, we've come to the conclusion that Hanjour wasn't in a hurry. Why would he be? All he was concentrating on was completing the mission.

quoted post removed Yet all you've proven is that you have no idea what you are talking about. You've shown complete ignorance of what it really takes to fly an airplane.

How do you debate someone who refuses to acknowledge the most basic points, such as that a hijacker is probably in a hurry to finish his job.
How can we refuse to acknowledge something that has zero evidence to support it?

I mean, come on...Ditto

[beachnut]

Quoted post removed
How do you debate someone who refuses to acknowledge the most basic points, such as that a hijacker is probably in a hurry to finish his job.

I mean, come on...


You make no sense, what does it all mean, why would Hani do a dive? Why are you worried about 3 minutes, gee he was speeding and that made up 3 minutes! So you have never flown a real plane, too bad.

[BenBurch]

One of the things that keeps bringing me back to this thread is a curiosity as to whether or not Zlaya will ever actually get around to explaining why the article is incorrect.
So far, nada!!!!!! Zlaya's arguement to date has been " it just is ".

By his way of looking at things, any answer is wrong if it does not confirm what he already believes.

[BenBurch]

No, Hanjour was in no hurry at all. Why should he be? The one man on the planet who could possibly order a shoot down is a coke-and-booze addled FAS victim who looks and sounds like a chimpanzee.

[beachnut]

No, Hanjour was in no hurry at all. Why should he be? The one man on the planet who could possibly order a shoot down is a coke-and-booze addled FAS victim who looks and sounds like a chimpanzee.
You were in charge of NORAD on 9/11? wowzer.

How does this relate to ground effect?

[HL7442]

You were in charge of NORAD on 9/11? wowzer.

How does this relate to ground effect?



I enjoy reading from those who think everything should work lickety split like in the movies when it comes to agencies like NORAD, FAA, CIA etc etc.
Some have no idea how the chain of command works and the time element involved in such matters.

[Reheat]

Why should he be? The one man on the planet who could possibly order a shoot down is a coke-and-booze addled FAS victim who looks and sounds like a chimpanzee.

You were in charge of NORAD on 9/11? wowzer.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)

[Zlaya]

No, Hanjour was in no hurry at all. Why should he be? The one man on the planet who could possibly order a shoot down is a coke-and-booze addled FAS victim who looks and sounds like a chimpanzee.

Yup, no need to be in a hurry. Why worry about intercepts. It's just the pentagon, and the whitehouse he's headed towards, i'm sure no one was paying attention anyways.

I hope you realize how insane you sound.

[TjW]

I thought we were talking about how 'flight experts' here claim that the Hanjour did the turn, because the dive would be impossible to orchestrate from that amazing height of 8 thousand feet.

Oh yea, and also, we've come to the conclusion that Hanjour wasn't in a hurry.

[edit=chillzeroEdited for civility[/edit]

How do you debate someone who refuses to acknowledge the most basic points, such as that a hijacker is probably in a hurry to finish his job.

I mean, come on...

I'd say Hani Hanjour did a turn instead of a dive because he had pilot training. Every pilot here has said that's the more reasonable course of action if you want to be certain of completing your mission.

You've shown absolutely no evidence that a real aircraft would have been controllable during a dive, and unfortunately, he wasn't flying a PC game.

But fine. Just for the sake of argument, assume no structual or control problems would occur during such a dive. I disagree that this is the case, but what the heck.
Further, assume that the pilot had some way of knowing that, even though it is well outside the documented VN diagram. I also disagree that this would be the case, but let's get on.

We have now reached a point where the pilot has two alternatives, and had to choose one.

He can choose the descending turn, a maneuver so common and easy to do that it is used as a landing approach pattern.

Or he can choose a steep dive, common only in aerobatics, and considered risky enough that federal regulations mandate parachutes be worn when they are done intentionally.

The flight recorder shows he chose to make a descending turn within the published envelope, only exceeding the published limits a few tens of seconds before impact.

Even if I go further, and agree (even though I don't) that Hani Hanjour made a bad decision, that the straight dive would have been a better way to go, what then?

If we allow as possible every debunked fact in your scenario: what exactly do you hope to prove? What is it evidence for?