Ground Effect

[BenBurch]

A lot of the Twoofers claim that the Pentagon aircraft could not have come in across the lawn as it did because "Ground Effect" would have made that impossible.

Well, now, lets see if I can recall a bit about ground effect;

1. It is primarily a low speed phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at speed.

2. It adds lift to the aircraft when the aircraft is within about one chord of the ground.

So, how could that have made the approach more difficult?

The opposite in fact, what little ground effect remained ought to have made it harder to auger into the lawn.

Comments?

[buka001]

The one thing they harp on about, is why didn't the jet blast from the plane blow the cars off the highway, like those demo videos.

[Dave Rogers]

The opposite in fact, what little ground effect remained ought to have made it harder to auger into the lawn.

Good point. One of the classic truth movement examples of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is to say that Hanjour did not have the skill to hit the ground floor of the Pentagon without hitting the lawn. It could be that he messed up his approach even more than we realise, and would have hit the lawn if not for the ground effect.

Dave

[BenBurch]

Good point. One of the classic truth movement examples of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy...

Exactly! We have no idea where he wanted to hit.

[scooby]

A lot of the Twoofers claim that the Pentagon aircraft could not have come in across the lawn as it did because "Ground Effect" would have made that impossible.

Well, now, lets see if I can recall a bit about ground effect;

1. It is primarily a low speed phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at speed.

2. It adds lift to the aircraft when the aircraft is within about one chord of the ground.

So, how could that have made the approach more difficult?

The opposite in fact, what little ground effect remained ought to have made it harder to auger into the lawn.

Comments?

I'm not sure that ground effect would be a prohibitive factor in the ability of an experienced pilot to hit a target such as the Pentagon, but your recollection is poor to say the least. Try looking it up next time else other people will and you'll end up looking like a fool.

The Lun-class (Russian: "Hen Harrier") (NATO reporting name: "Utka"; Russian: "Duck") Wing-In-Ground effect vehicle was an extremely unusual aircraft designed by Rostislav Evgenievich Alexeev and used by the Soviet & Russian navies from 1987 to sometime in the late '90s.

Performance

* Maximum speed: 550 knots (1018.6 km/h)
* Range: 1,000 nm (1,860 km)

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

[Dave Rogers]

The Lun-class (Russian: "Hen Harrier") (NATO reporting name: "Utka"; Russian: "Duck") Wing-In-Ground effect vehicle was an extremely unusual aircraft designed by Rostislav Evgenievich Alexeev and used by the Soviet & Russian navies from 1987 to sometime in the late '90s.

Performance

* Maximum speed: 550 knots (1018.6 km/h)


Can you enlighten us as to how this is inconsistent with the aerodynamic principle that ground effect decreases with increasing airspeed?

Dave

[JimBenArm]

Can you enlighten us as to how this is inconsistent with the aerodynamic principle that ground effect decreases with increasing airspeed?

Dave
No, you don't understand. It's a plane. It can only do 550 kts! Therefore, a different plane with a totally different design cannot possibly have gone faster!
It's casual to the most obvious observer!

[Gravy]

(deleted part cuz I misunderstood something)

By the way, the ground effect issue has been covered here ad nauseum. Of course a plane can fly close to the ground. Anyway, flight 77 was only close to the ground for about 1 second. Detailed discussion of ground effect here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not sure that ground effect would be a prohibitive factor in the ability of an experienced pilot to hit a target such as the Pentagon, but your recollection is poor to say the least. Try looking it up next time else other people will and you'll end up looking like a fool.

Looking things up so as not to look like a fool is generally a good idea.

http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/aft_perf.htm


Ground effect is also influential in landing. As the airplane flies down from free air into ground effect, the reduction of induced drag as it nears the runway comes into effect to make the airplane float past the point of intended touchdown. In the common case of an airplane coming in with excessive speed, the usable portion of the runway may slip by with the airplane refusing to settle down to land.


Now, it looks to me from the above passage that, if an inexperienced pilot is trying to hit the wall of a building low down but gets his approach a little too low, the ground effect will actually help him. The increase in lift at very low altitude, though small, will tend to reduce the dive angle and allow the plane to float into the target. Far from being an impediment to Hanjour's manoever, it looks like ground effect would make it more likely for him to hit the wall low down.

Dave

[Dog Town]

All one needs to answer the kooks!
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml


ETA: D'oh Gravy!

[scooby]

Can you enlighten us as to how this is inconsistent with the aerodynamic principle that ground effect decreases with increasing airspeed?

Dave

I've yet to see this principal, but regardless, as Russian Ekranoplans use their stubby wings to skim over the water at 550 knots, this statement ...

1. It is primarily a low speed phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at speed.

... is a worthless recollection.

[beachnut]

A lot of the Twoofers claim that the Pentagon aircraft could not have come in across the lawn as it did because "Ground Effect" would have made that impossible.

Well, now, lets see if I can recall a bit about ground effect;

1. It is primarily a low speed phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at speed.

2. It adds lift to the aircraft when the aircraft is within about one chord of the ground.

So, how could that have made the approach more difficult?

The opposite in fact, what little ground effect remained ought to have made it harder to auger into the lawn.

Comments?
Ground effect making the approach to the Pentagon is only a fringe idiot idea from 9/11 truth. No facts just lies from 9/11 truth and the pilots at p4t must have problems flying aircraft they can not even hit buildings in simulators. So this bs is made up junk from 9/11 truth.

Ground effect would have little effect on hitting the Pentagon, the Pentagon is just too large to miss; remember the idea was to hit the Pentagon, not make a soft landing.

Ground effect messes up landings, kind of, when you have a few extra knots (extra speed), you may balloon setting the normal landing attitude, when you need to set a lower attitude so you can land faster.

When you hear "ground effect" from a 9/11 truth drone, you know they are unable to understand reality. These idiot ideas should be labled, like nut case idea number 100,000,054.

[Minadin]

I've yet to see this principal, but regardless, as Russian Ekranoplans use their stubby wings to skim over the water at 550 knots, this statement ...

1. It is primarily a low speed phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at speed.

... is a worthless recollection.

From DogTown's link, above:

Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground, it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack. Second, we have seen that this effect actually decreases with speed since induced drag has increasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies.

(Bolding mine.)

[Gravy]

1. It is primarily a low speed phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at speed.

... is a worthless recollection.No, it is a correct observation. Ground effect decreases with speed, period.

[Dave Rogers]

I've yet to see this principal, but regardless, as Russian Ekranoplans use their stubby wings to skim over the water at 550 knots, this statement ...

1. It is primarily a low speed phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at speed.

... is a worthless recollection.

It's difficult to explain something like this to you since you repeatedly fail to grasp the simplest concepts. You are saying that a single data point is inconsistent with a trend. That is asinine and absurd. The maximum speed of the Ekranoplan tells you nothing about how much weaker the ground effect is at that speed than at lower speeds; all it tells you is that there is sufficient ground effect remaining at the operating altitude and maximum speed of the Ekranoplan for it to generate sufficient lift. In other words, the Ekranoplan is designed so that, for its specific wing form, "markedly less powerful" is still powerful enough.

Dave

[Cuddles]

Well, I've learned something at least. I always assumed the ground effect would be stronger at high speeds. I guess it's a good job I'm not a pilot.

[peteweaver]

Ground effect was used on lotus racing cars in the late 1970's and early 1980's, its basically an upside down wing. the curvature generates a vacuum which pulled the cars down.

[scooby]

He would have hit the wall because of the ground effect!

Good point. One of the classic truth movement examples of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is to say that Hanjour did not have the skill to hit the ground floor of the Pentagon without hitting the lawn. It could be that he messed up his approach even more than we realise, and would have hit the lawn if not for the ground effect.

Dave

Ground effect was not a factor!

Can you enlighten us as to how this is inconsistent with the aerodynamic principle that ground effect decreases with increasing airspeed?

Dave

Ground effect was definitely a factor!

Looking things up so as not to look like a fool is generally a good idea.

http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/aft_perf.htm

Now, it looks to me from the above passage that, if an inexperienced pilot is trying to hit the wall of a building low down but gets his approach a little too low, the ground effect will actually help him. The increase in lift at very low altitude, though small, will tend to reduce the dive angle and allow the plane to float into the target. Far from being an impediment to Hanjour's manoever, it looks like ground effect would make it more likely for him to hit the wall low down.

Dave

LOL

[CurtC]

1. It is primarily a low speed phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at speed.Yes.

2. It adds lift to the aircraft when the aircraft is within about one chord of the ground.I had always thought, from the time I was in flight school, that ground effect increases lift, but I've learned here that it primarily decreases drag, and therefore will make a pilot float past the point his previous descent angle would indicate.

Also, the chord of a wing is its front-to-back width, which is normally a pretty small distance. My understanding is that ground effect is noticeable within a wingspan.

Otherwise, you're right on the money. The ground effect argument from a Troother is a shibboleth that indicates he has no clue.

[scooby]

No, it is a correct observation. Ground effect decreases with speed, period.

Well you've got an argument on your hands, people are posting information from pilots that contradicts your claim ...

Ground effect is also influential in landing. As the airplane flies down from free air into ground effect, the reduction of induced drag as it nears the runway comes into, effect to make the airplane float past the point of intended touchdown. In the common case of an airplane coming in with excessive speed, the usable portion of the runway may slip by with the airplane refusing to settle down to land. A go around will probably be necessary. On short fields, approach as slowly as is consistent with safety. ... to err, minimise ground effect?

http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/aft_perf.htm

Try and come up with a coherent answer you can all agree on and let me know.

[BenBurch]

Yes.

I had always thought, from the time I was in flight school, that ground effect increases lift, but I've learned here that it primarily decreases drag, and therefore will make a pilot float past the point his previous descent angle would indicate.

Also, the chord of a wing is its front-to-back width, which is normally a pretty small distance. My understanding is that ground effect is noticeable within a wingspan.

Otherwise, you're right on the money. The ground effect argument from a Troother is a shibboleth that indicates he has no clue.

Thanks CurtC and others! Yes, Wingspan, I had forgotten what chord meant in this context.

[Dave Rogers]

He would have hit the wall because of the ground effect!



Ground effect was not a factor!



Ground effect was definitely a factor!



LOL

To summarise:
(1) We don't know where Hanjour was trying to hit the Pentagon.
(2) If he was trying to hit it low down, ground effect might have made it easier to hit it low down.
(3) If he messed up his approach and came in too low, ground effect might have made it more likely for him to hit the wall instead of the ground.
(4) However, since ground effect is weaker at these higher speeds, it may not have had much effect at all.

Since the original meme was that the ground effect would have made it impossible for Hanjour to effect his approach, the conclusion that ground effect would have been either beneficial or negligible is a sound refutation of the original meme.

(5) Scooby isn't particularly interested in any of the above, and would rather gibber like an idiot.

Dave

[Slayhamlet]

Well you've got an argument on your hands, people are posting information from pilots that contradicts your claim ...

Ground effect is also influential in landing. As the airplane flies down from free air into ground effect, the reduction of induced drag as it nears the runway comes into, effect to make the airplane float past the point of intended touchdown. In the common case of an airplane coming in with excessive speed, the usable portion of the runway may slip by with the airplane refusing to settle down to land. A go around will probably be necessary. On short fields, approach as slowly as is consistent with safety. ... to err, minimise ground effect?

http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/aft_perf.htm

Try and come up with a coherent answer you can all agree on and let me know.

No, not to minimize ground effect; rather, to give enough time to compensate for ground effect. The "excessive speed" here doubtless does not refer to speeds in excess of 400 mph.

[scooby]

No, not to minimize ground effect; rather, to give enough time to compensate for ground effect. The "excessive speed" here doubtless does not refer to speeds in excess of 400 mph.

Oh is that what it says, ahh ...

Look, you're talking to the wrong person, I'm happy with my understanding of the term ground effect and it remains intact despite reading this thread.

[JimBenArm]

Oh is that what it says, ahh ...

Look, you're talking to the wrong person, I'm happy with my MIS-understanding of the term ground effect and it remains intact despite reading this thread.
Fixed it for ya...

[Reheat]

Well you've got an argument on your hands, people are posting information from pilots that contradicts your claim ...

Ground effect is also influential in landing. As the airplane flies down from free air into ground effect, the reduction of induced drag as it nears the runway comes into, effect to make the airplane float past the point of intended touchdown. In the common case of an airplane coming in with excessive speed, the usable portion of the runway may slip by with the airplane refusing to settle down to land. A go around will probably be necessary. On short fields, approach as slowly as is consistent with safety. ... to err, minimise ground effect?

http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/aft_perf.htm

Try and come up with a coherent answer you can all agree on and let me know.

You obviously don't have a clue about what you're reading and you obviously don't understand ground effect, period.

The author in the link you posted is talking about excessive speed IN ADDITION to ground effect causing a hazardous situation on landing that may result in the necessity for a go-around. He is NOT stating that ground effect increases with speed at all.

The approach speed for landing for most aircraft is calculated as 1.3 X stall speed. If an aircraft exceeds this speed the rapidity with which the runway disappears is exacerbated when landing and not properly compensating for ground effect. The combination of these two factors is what the author is addressing, not that increased landing speed results in pronounced ground effect.

As is typical with troofers, you have no clue and no facts. Go troll elsewhere.

[CurtC]

Well you've got an argument on your hands, people are posting information from pilots that contradicts your claim ...

Ground effect is also influential in landing. As the airplane flies down from free air into ground effect, the reduction of induced drag as it nears the runway comes into, effect to make the airplane float past the point of intended touchdown. In the common case of an airplane coming in with excessive speed, the usable portion of the runway may slip by with the airplane refusing to settle down to land. A go around will probably be necessary. On short fields, approach as slowly as is consistent with safety. ... to err, minimise ground effect?

So... to refute Gravy's claim that ground effect is stronger at lower speeds, you post an explanation of how it can have an effect at landing speed, which is basically as slow as an airplane can fly? And slightly above this speed? You think this is a refutation of Gravy's comment somehow?

And further, do you think it has anything at all to do with the Hanjour conversation?

[Reheat]

Look, you're talking to the wrong person, I'm happy with my understanding of the term ground effect and it remains intact despite reading this thread.

Yep, very typical. You may be happy remaining ignorant, but YOU ARE WRONG about the phenomena known as ground effect. No clue, no facts!

[Slayhamlet]

Oh is that what it says, ahh ...

Look, you're talking to the wrong person, I'm happy with my understanding of the term ground effect and it remains intact despite reading this thread.

I'm not posting facts in an attempt to make you give up your fantasies, as of course I don't expect you to exhibit the intellectual honesty necessary for that. I just won't let your BS go unchallenged.

[scooby]

Yep, very typical. You may be happy remaining ignorant, but YOU ARE WRONG about the phenomena known as ground effect. No clue, no facts!

OK, no doubt you will be able to summarize my understanding of the term 'ground effect' and highlight where it is in error.

[beachnut]

Well you've got an argument on your hands, people are posting information from pilots that contradicts your claim ...

Ground effect is also influential in landing. As the airplane flies down from free air into ground effect, the reduction of induced drag as it nears the runway comes into, effect to make the airplane float past the point of intended touchdown. In the common case of an airplane coming in with excessive speed, the usable portion of the runway may slip by with the airplane refusing to settle down to land. A go around will probably be necessary. On short fields, approach as slowly as is consistent with safety. ... to err, minimise ground effect?

http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/aft_perf.htm

Try and come up with a coherent answer you can all agree on and let me know.
Please explain what this means with respect to 9/11 with facts and other real science. Explain what this has to do with hitting buildings? What does floating 2 inches off the ground for thousands of feet down a runway have to do with hitting a building at 500 mph?

Please try to present some facts on this topic which you do not understand. You have posted and still I have no idea what you want to say about 77 hitting the Pentagon. What are you trying to say? Are you afraid to state what you think?

[scooby]

You obviously don't have a clue about what you're reading and you obviously don't understand ground effect, period.

The author in the link you posted is talking about excessive speed IN ADDITION to ground effect causing a hazardous situation on landing that may result in the necessity for a go-around. He is NOT stating that ground effect increases with speed at all.

The approach speed for landing for most aircraft is calculated as 1.3 X stall speed. If an aircraft exceeds this speed the rapidity with which the runway disappears is exacerbated when landing and not properly compensating for ground effect. The combination of these two factors is what the author is addressing, not that increased landing speed results in pronounced ground effect.

As is typical with troofers, you have no clue and no facts. Go troll elsewhere.

Considering I haven't stated my understanding of the term ground effect (a clue there for the 'reheat' persona) - that's a lot of words invested in correcting it.

[jaydeehess]

There are two types of drag on an aircraft(and I hope I get the two terms correct, its been a while but bear with me)

One type is due to the friction of the air on the aircframe, this increases with speed, obviously. This is IIRC, induced drag.

The other type of drag, parasitic drag, is caused by the turbulent air flow behind the aircraft this also increases with velocity, BUT not as fast as induced drag. ( it seems to me that induced drag increases proportional to the square of velocity whereas parasitic drag increases dirrectly proportional to velocity, but I could be off on that)

It is parasitic drag that is interrupted near the ground and causes an overall reduction in drag and a correseponding increase in lift. However if at 200 knots the parasitic drag is 40% of overall drag and at 500 knots it is 10% then ground effect cancelling some parasitic drag will hardly be noticed at 500 knots.

The craft that scooby refers to CANNOT fly in true fashion, it simply lacks enough wing lift. This alone should be a clue that its design does not aprticularily resemble that of a true aircraft. Its 'wings' have been designed to maximize ground effect lift, a design that would be counter productive in a true aircraft given that it increases parasitic drag.

I can, if someone wishes , try and find the articles that explain all of this OR one can do the research themselves using the terms "induced drag", parasitic drag" and "ground effect".

[jaydeehess]

Considering I haven't stated my understanding of the term ground effect (a clue there for the 'reheat' persona) - that's a lot of words invested in correcting it.

True, you have posted arguements in favor of the idea that ground effect would make it difficult to hit the ground floor of the Pentagon. Now, being challenged on it you have retreated into the old, "well I didn't really say I understood that it would have that result". Sorry but making pronouncements and then claiming ignorance as a defense is a juvenile tactic.

Try and come up with a coherent answer you can all agree on and let me know.

Take your own advice.

[HyJinX]

I usually make it a point to not discuss things I have no knowledge of. Doing a little research on the topic at hand before posting to a forum is what helps me to play a more useful role in discussions. I have noticed that some posters do not subscribe to this method. Unfortunately it derails the subject matter and wastes a lot of people's time.

[jaydeehess]

Good point. One of the classic truth movement examples of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is to say that Hanjour did not have the skill to hit the ground floor of the Pentagon without hitting the lawn. It could be that he messed up his approach even more than we realise, and would have hit the lawn if not for the ground effect.

Dave

For that matter he could have been over compensating for a slight ground effect and aiming for a point 35 feet off the ground.

[scooby]

True, you have posted arguements in favor of the idea that ground effect would make it difficult to hit the ground floor of the Pentagon. Now, being challenged on it you have retreated into the old, "well I didn't really say I understood that it would have that result". Sorry but making pronouncements and then claiming ignorance as a defense is a juvenile tactic.

Take your own advice.

No, I don't think it would be a decisive factor and have stated so.
I was just highlighting the problems with the OP.

However it has been established that I am someone who is prepared to state the truth about what happened on 911, and thus the argue bots descend. Take my advice. And guess what it is. :)

[jaydeehess]

No, I don't think it would be a decisive factor and have stated so.
I was just highlighting the problems with the OP.

However it has been established that I am someone who is prepared to state the truth about what happened on 911, and thus the argue bots descend. Take my advice. And guess what it is. :)

If your point was to illustrate the arguements that CT's would indeed use then you did that in such a fashion as to create the illusion that you are argeeing with that position.
I'm not sure that ground effect would be a prohibitive factor in the ability of an experienced pilot to hit a target such as the Pentagon, but your recollection is poor to say the least.
in your first post in this thread and indeed the first post of yours I have ever read(I am not in any of the other threads you are in to the best of my knowledge), does nothing at all to convey the idea that all you are doing is bringing up CT evidence to bolster their claim.

Dancing around an issue and not being clear is counter productive to a discussion just as much as being an 'argue bot', IMHO.

[Slayhamlet]

Sorry, scooby. You haven't demonstrated that a single thing stated in the OP is incorrect or "worthless". It is all pertinent to flight 77's approach and collision with the Pentagon. There are no problems with it.

[scooby]

If your point was to illustrate the arguements that CT's would indeed use then you did that in such a fashion as to create the illusion that you are argeeing with that position.

in your first post in this thread and indeed the first post of yours I have ever read(I am not in any of the other threads you are in to the best of my knowledge), does nothing at all to convey the idea that all you are doing is bringing up CT evidence to bolster their claim.

Dancing around an issue and not being clear is counter productive to a discussion just as much as being an 'argue bot', IMHO.

The Russians have developed 'wing in ground effect' vehicles that make use of the phenomena to fly at 550 knots - relying on it to do so. In light of that this statement is misleading at best ...

1. It is primarily a low speed phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at speed.

It's not really an issue thats up for debate.

[nicepants]

Helicopters encounter ground effect even more substantially than their fixed wing counterparts due to the flow of air through the main rotor. It's still not enough to keep you from hitting the ground if that's what you're aiming at.

[BenBurch]

The Russians have developed 'wing in ground effect' vehicles that make use of the phenomena to fly at 550 knots - relying on it to do so. In light of that this statement is misleading at best ...

1. It is primarily a low speed phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at speed.

It's not really an issue thats up for debate.

Batsqueeze. All that says is that the Russians use the remaining effect at that speed to advantage. No contradiction to what I posted whatsoever because I never said it goes away, just that it becomes markedly less powerful, and it does!

[scooby]

Batsqueeze. All that says is that the Russians use the remaining effect at that speed to advantage. No contradiction to what I posted whatsoever because I never said it goes away, just that it becomes markedly less powerful, and it does!

'goes away' - ah the raw science of it all.

Could you dumb it up a bit?

What percentage of the effect were the Russians utilising at 550 knots and how do they compensate for this reduction as they increase speed?

You're going to know all this aren't you?

[scooby]

Batsqueeze. All that says is that the Russians use the remaining effect at that speed to advantage. No contradiction to what I posted whatsoever because I never said it goes away, just that it becomes markedly less powerful, and it does!

Oh, and can I just point one more thing out before I go away laughing.

Well, now, lets see if I can recall a bit about ground effect;

You're not stating anything with certainty remember, this is your attempt to 'recall a bit about ground effect'. I believe you were implying that corrections would be welcome, why so grumpy?

[Terry]

There are two types of drag on an aircraft(and I hope I get the two terms correct, its been a while but bear with me)

One type is due to the friction of the air on the aircframe, this increases with speed, obviously. This is IIRC, induced drag.

That isn't induced drag, that's the total frictional drag, parasitic and form/pressure drag added together.


The other type of drag, parasitic drag, is caused by the turbulent air flow behind the aircraft this also increases with velocity, BUT not as fast as induced drag. ( it seems to me that induced drag increases proportional to the square of velocity whereas parasitic drag increases dirrectly proportional to velocity, but I could be off on that)

It is parasitic drag that is interrupted near the ground and causes an overall reduction in drag and a correseponding increase in lift. However if at 200 knots the parasitic drag is 40% of overall drag and at 500 knots it is 10% then ground effect cancelling some parasitic drag will hardly be noticed at 500 knots.


meh, this bit's almost completely wrong. The other kind of drag is induced (or lift-dependent) drag. The drag coefficient due to induced drag depends (for a given geometry) on the amount of lift being generated. Therefore, in unaccellerated flight it is higher at lower speeds. Induced drag is caused by the vorticity bound to the wing tilting the effective lift vector, and it is this which is partly cancelled by ground effect.

Never the less, the overall conclusion that a pilot won't notice anything much from ground effect when flying a low-Cl approach to an impact does seem perfectly defensible. And even if he did notice something, he's trying to crash, so he could correct his course easily enough, since he doesn't care how hard he hits.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Aircraft may be affected by a number of Ground effects, aerodynamic effects due to a flying body's proximity to the ground.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_in_aircraft#_note-0)
One of the most important of these effects is the Wing In Ground effect, which refers to the reduction in drag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28force%29) experienced by an aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft) as it approaches a height approximately twice a wingspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing)'s length off the ground or other level surface (such as the sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea)). The effect increases as the wing descends closer to the ground, with the most significant effects occurring at a height of one half the wingspan length above the ground. It can present a hazard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard) for inexperienced pilots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviator) who are not accustomed to correcting for it on their approach to landing, but it has also been used to effectively enhance the performance of certain kinds of aircraft whose planform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planform) has been adapted to take advantage of it, such as the Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) ekranoplans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan). The first to give scientific description of the ground effect and to provide theoretical methods of calculation of air cushion vehicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_cushion_vehicle) was Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky) in his 1927 paper "Air Resistance and the Express Train".[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_in_aircraft#_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_in_aircraft#_note-2)
. . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_in_aircraft (emphasis mine)

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, and can I just point one more thing out before I go away laughing.

Well, now, lets see if I can recall a bit about ground effect;

You're not stating anything with certainty remember ...

I'm not sure ...

I've yet to see this principal ...

I haven't stated my understanding of the term ground effect ...

Marvellous.

[jaydeehess]

The Russians have developed 'wing in ground effect' vehicles that make use of the phenomena to fly at 550 knots - relying on it to do so. In light of that this statement is misleading at best ...

1. It is primarily a low speed phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at speed.

It's not really an issue thats up for debate.


POINT was that it is primarily a low speed phenom for AIRCRAFT. That a machine was designed to maximize this effect is barely relevent.

[Slayhamlet]

The Russians have developed 'wing in ground effect' vehicles that make use of the phenomena to fly at 550 knots - relying on it to do so. In light of that this statement is misleading at best ...

1. It is primarily a low speed phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at speed.

It's not really an issue thats up for debate.

No, you're wrong. It is primarily a low speed phenomenon that becomes less pronounced at higher speeds. Only very specialized "airplanes", called WIG vehicles (of which there are not very many in the world), experience any significant ground effect around the speeds at which AA Flight 77 was flying when it crashing into the Pentagon. You are now obviously arguing just for the sake of argument and it's becoming very tiresome.

[Slayhamlet]

Oh, and can I just point one more thing out before I go away laughing.

Well, now, lets see if I can recall a bit about ground effect;

You're not stating anything with certainty remember, this is your attempt to 'recall a bit about ground effect'. I believe you were implying that corrections would be welcome, why so grumpy?

Because your "corrections" weren't corrections at all and you are being very dishonest. Cut it out.

[Plantfoam]

When I first read the OP, I thought to myself, "Hey! Here's my chance to reference the Ekranoplon!"

Yeah, I'm new here, sorry for underestimating the six people that beat me to it:D

[HyJinX]

I think Scoobs thinks you're all talking about these types of ground effects...

http://tanetane92.web.infoseek.co.jp/052691.jpg

[Corsair 115]

[i]The Lun-class (Russian: "Hen Harrier") (NATO reporting name: "Utka"; Russian: "Duck") Wing-In-Ground effect vehicle was an extremely unusual aircraft designed by Rostislav Evgenievich Alexeev and used by the Soviet & Russian navies from 1987 to sometime in the late '90s.Ah, yes, the "Caspian Sea Monster" as it was known to U.S. intelligence, which couldn't figure out what the heck the vehicle was.

It is worth noting that this vehicle was specially designed to take advantage of the ground effect. In a newstand science & technology type of magazine (I forget which one exactly) some years back there was a cover article on such vehicles. The article termed them "wingships" and said how with sufficient development you could have large vessels essentially flying low over the ocean by using a dedicated design to take advantage of the ground effect.

If I recall correctly, the principle was that with a special hull/fuselage shape and by staying low enough to the ground or sea to take advantage of the ground effect it lowered the amount of power needed to get a set amount of mass airborne. But this only works close to the ground.

[CurtC]

I'm intrigued by this Ekranoplan. I can believe that it would be more efficient than flying the same plane at 2000 feet elevation, but:

* Could it be more efficient than an airliner at 30,000 feet, that has only thin air to slow it down?

* Would its safe operation depend on not coming across large waves?

* If there were lots of these, wouldn't that in itself be a hazard? After all, one of the factors that makes air travel safe is that the planes are in three dimensions, greatly enhancing your ability to get lucky and not collide.

[WildCat]

The Russians have developed 'wing in ground effect' vehicles that make use of the phenomena to fly at 550 knots - relying on it to do so. In light of that this statement is misleading at best ...

1. It is primarily a low speed phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at speed.

It's not really an issue thats up for debate.
Perhaps this is the time for you to give your own take on the quotes you copy and paste. I suspect you really don't understand what you are reading.

[WildCat]

Here's the pic of scooby's ground-effect plane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pic_4459.jpg), as you can see it is nearly identical to a 757.

:dl:

[scooby]

Still waiting.

'goes away' - ah the raw science of it all.

Could you dumb it up a bit?

What percentage of the effect were the Russians utilising at 550 knots and how do they compensate for this reduction as they increase speed?

You're going to know all this aren't you?

[scooby]

Here's a freebie, why don't you all claim that ground effect reduces as speed increases for normal aircraft, but remains constant for aircraft designed to make use of it. That should muddy the water enough to keep people busy for a while. Free you all up to work on your Iran stories.

[Minadin]

Here's a freebie, why don't you all claim that ground effect reduces as speed increases for normal aircraft, but remains constant for aircraft designed to make use of it. That should muddy the water enough to keep people busy for a while. Free you all up to work on your Iran stories.

1. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that the above is true.

2. If you agree to "ground effect reduces as speed increases for normal aircraft" what the heck is your point, exactly?

3. I don't have an Iran story to work on.

[jaydeehess]

That isn't induced drag, that's the total frictional drag, parasitic and form/pressure drag added together.



meh, this bit's almost completely wrong. The other kind of drag is induced (or lift-dependent) drag. The drag coefficient due to induced drag depends (for a given geometry) on the amount of lift being generated. Therefore, in unaccellerated flight it is higher at lower speeds. Induced drag is caused by the vorticity bound to the wing tilting the effective lift vector, and it is this which is partly cancelled by ground effect.

Never the less, the overall conclusion that a pilot won't notice anything much from ground effect when flying a low-Cl approach to an impact does seem perfectly defensible. And even if he did notice something, he's trying to crash, so he could correct his course easily enough, since he doesn't care how hard he hits.

That's what I get for recalling this off the top of my head.

At any rate the the contribution of the ground effect 'lift' on an aircraft (not a boat with a ground effect 'wing') would be lesser as the aircraft was going faster and thus would be less problematic for a pilot at higher velocities.

[DGM]

Still waiting.
First can you tell me what happens to a "catamaran" boat a high speed, and does that have to do with ground effect? Maybe you'll understand this Russian "plane".

[Terry]

Ground effect reduces with reduced Cl. In unaccellerated flight, this means it is less at higher speeds.

[jaydeehess]

Here's a freebie, why don't you all claim that ground effect reduces as speed increases for normal aircraft, but remains constant for aircraft designed to make use of it. That should muddy the water enough to keep people busy for a while. Free you all up to work on your Iran stories.

I wouldn't know enough about the WIG craft but what has been stated concerning the GE in aircraft being less of an effect at higher velocities is true, and you have not disputed it. Do we then agree that is indeed true or is your sole purpose here to "muddy the waters"?

I don't have an Iran story either and Iran has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread or the attacks of 9/11.
Are you infering that everyone here is a neo-con bent on military action in order to dominate the middle east? Will you even answer the two questions in bold here?

[BenBurch]

Still waiting.

I'm giving this all the consideration it deserves...

http://www.haltaylor.com/Hal%20sleeping%20in%20small%20rocker.jpg

[jaydeehess]

Ground effect reduces with reduced Cl. In unaccellerated flight, this means it is less at higher speeds.

Took my own advise and looked a few things up. They go into a little more detail than you did but say essentially the same thing.

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

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

One thing I was wondering about though is:

Unlike parasitic drag, induced drag is inversely proportional to the square of the airspeed.


Is that in fact accurate?

[Terry]

One thing I was wondering about though is:

Unlike parasitic drag, induced drag is inversely proportional to the square of the airspeed.

Is that in fact accurate?


induced drag goes like Cl2 - in unaccellerated flight, Cl goes inversely with the square root of speed. So induced drag should be inversely proportional to speed, not speed squared. Unless I dropped a power there somehow.

I keep banging on about "unaccellerated flight" because that's the only time Cl is actually determined by speed. If you're pulling a loop or something, this is no longer the case.

[jaydeehess]

induced drag goes like Cl2 - in unaccellerated flight, Cl goes inversely with the square root of speed. So induced drag should be inversely proportional to speed, not speed squared. Unless I dropped a power there somehow.

I keep banging on about "unaccellerated flight" because that's the only time Cl is actually determined by speed. If you're pulling a loop or something, this is no longer the case.

It seemed odd to me but I given my ballsing up of the reason for reduced GE at higher speeds that's as far as I dared venture.

I had assumed you were referring to level flight at constant velocity to eliminate any effcts due to angluar or straight line accelleration or changes in control surfaces.

Obviously the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was travelling in a straight line with little change in speed over the last few hundred vertical feet, and only small adjustments to the control surfaces during that time as well. I don't know that he changed the trim of the aircraft at all from the time he was in control of the aircraft. He did not use flaps or lower the gear.

[A W Smith]

Here's a freebie, why don't you all claim that ground effect reduces as speed increases for normal aircraft, but remains constant for aircraft designed to make use of it. That should muddy the water enough to keep people busy for a while. Free you all up to work on your Iran stories.


The ground effect issue is irrelevant unless you know specifically what floor of the building hani hanjour was aiming for. You do know what floor he was aiming for don't you scooby? Also you might tell us what the distance from the underside of the wing to the ground is scooby. don't forget there are engines between the wing and the ground unlike your Russian example. Also there are no spill plates on the wing ends. And the fuselage projects below the wing.

[Slayhamlet]

Here's a freebie, why don't you all claim that ground effect reduces as speed increases for normal aircraft, but remains constant for aircraft designed to make use of it. That should muddy the water enough to keep people busy for a while. Free you all up to work on your Iran stories.

Stop trolling and get a life.

[gumboot]

Folks, you've all missed an important element in relation to ground effect. Air speed is only one factor. The other is angle of attack.

A low airspeed produces a strong ground effect, with that effect decreasing as speed increases. However, at the same time a high angle of attack also produces a strong ground effect, with the effect decreasing as the angle of attack is reduced.

Thus, ground effect is most noticeable at low speed, in a high angle of attack. Scooby commented on landing, which so thoroughly demonstrated Scooby's lack of understanding of ground effect. When aircraft land, they flare at the last moment. This is done to maximise ground effect. Pilots exploit ground effect to create a "cushion" of air for the aircraft to sink through, resulting in a softer landing.

The noticeable exception is carrier aircraft, which retain a low angle of attack, pushing straight through the cushion of air and not exploiting ground effect. This results in noticeably harder landings, however it prevents too much speed bleeding off, which is vital in carrier landings as you don't have 3,000 spare feet of runway to stop on when you miss the cable.

Now, in the case of Flight 77 we have a negative angle of attack (nose down) and a high speed. This is the scenario in which ground effect is weakest for that airframe. Pointing to a different airframe is totally irrelevant, because ground effect is different for every airframe.

-Gumboot

[cyclonic]

airbus a310 doing low pass at portugal airshow at 700kph (2nd pass)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfhC9ft_hk

[scratchy]

Time for an intermission with some fitting entertainment: Monty Pythons Black knight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

[cyclonic]

Time for an intermission with some fitting entertainment: Monty Pythons Black knight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

lol classic movie, i like the killer rabbit, RUNAWAY! RUNAWAY!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg

[Gravy]

Batsqueeze. All that says is that the Russians use the remaining effect at that speed to advantage. No contradiction to what I posted whatsoever because I never said it goes away, just that it becomes markedly less powerful, and it does!If there's anything I'm good for, it's wacky plane photos. Note the cruise missile launchers on this ekranoplan.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904710b4a58054e.jpg

To answer another question, these planes relied on ground effect to stay airborne. They could not fly at altitude.

[BenBurch]

I'd say those are flying ships rather than damp aircraft.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If there's anything I'm good for, it's wacky plane photos. Note the cruise missile launchers on this ekranoplan.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904710b4a58054e.jpg

To answer another question, these planes relied on ground effect to stay airborne. They could not fly at altitude.

Note the positioning of the engines. Far ahead of the "wings". And what appear to be vanes on the rear of the engines directing the thrust downwards.

Natural ground effect obviously isn't enough to keep the ekranoplan going. Even a craft specifically designed to take advantage of ground effect needs to artificially create or amplify ground effect to stay "air" borne.

[mailman]

Pilots exploit ground effect to create a "cushion" of air for the aircraft to sink through, resulting in a softer landing.

Of course this is only a "feeling" as Im sure you realise its not actually a cushion of air that is creating the ground effect?

But anyway...according to troofers this video must be a government lie?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCac4EjgluA

Regards

Mailman

[gumboot]

Of course this is only a "feeling" as Im sure you realise its not actually a cushion of air that is creating the ground effect?


Of course. That's just a very simplistic way of explaining the result of ground effect.

-Gumboot

[TjW]

The Russians have developed 'wing in ground effect' vehicles that make use of the phenomena to fly at 550 knots - relying on it to do so. In light of that this statement is misleading at best ...

1. It is primarily a low speed phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at speed.

It's not really an issue thats up for debate.

The speed is actually immaterial. A more aerodynamically accurate way of saying this would be that:

"It is primarily a high coefficient of lift phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at lower lift coefficients."

WIG vehicles use wings of relatively small area at high lift coefficients. Even at high speed, the lift coefficients (and the utility of ground effect) will remain higher than the more lightly loaded wings of aircraft designed to fly out of ground effect.

Any aircraft near or over Vne at sea level is at about as low a coefficient of lift as that airframe can achieve. So ground effect, though present, will be as small an effect as it is possible for it to be.

[Gravy]

I just got this email from an anti-Semitic moron named George. This is the entire content.

At 700 ft or 20 feet above ground can a jet airliner travel at 500 mph ? Now Mark,go call Boeing and get the answer like a good little Israel boy and post the answer on your web site.
And then explain in english how come Boeing planes did on Sept 11
{:-(

[BenBurch]

I just got this email from an anti-Semitic moron named George. This is the entire content.

You know, We ought to simply approach Boeing and tell them that these nutcases are saying they build incompetent aircraft, and get a formal answer to this question.

On second thought, no, that wouldn't work because they would simply say "See! Boeing has been Gotten To by the NWO!!!11!"
:(

[Mr. Skinny]

I just got this email from an anti-Semitic moron named George. This is the entire content.
Will you be changing your custom title to Blueberry Tart Israel Boy King?

[Gravy]

Will you be changing your custom title to Blueberry Tart Israel Boy King?I'll have to get Digest's approval when she returns from her tour. A man could get shot at 1,200 yards with a name like that.

[Mr. Skinny]

I'll have to get Digest's approval when she returns from her tour. A man could get shot at 1,200 yards with a name like that.
Hehe...I get the references to Digest, and the joke as well. :)

BTW, anyone hear from her?

[peteweaver]

http://www.infowhores.co.uk/images/spitfire.jpg

As for 757's,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ2FCiQfLu0

Ok, the pilot of the 757 in that video wasn't as nutty as the spit's pilot, but never the less it proves that a 757 is capable of very very low flying, and would be more than capable of crashing into a building like the Pentagon.

[peteweaver]

KC135 low fly past over the desert. This is a tanker plane based on a Boeing 707 airframe, proving how low heavies can go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WmhAa_CJYY

Another example of large planes flying low: The damn buster raids; in which Lancasters flew low under radar, to drop bouncing bombs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9euHsjl6Z0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-vtt8PRDtA

Btw, how do you embed youtube videos ?

[BenBurch]

All one needs to answer the kooks!
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml


ETA: D'oh Gravy!

Great link, BTW, I just revisited it and some of the ancillary links on that page.

[Terry]

A more aerodynamically accurate way of saying this would be that:

"It is primarily a high coefficient of lift phenomenon that becomes markedly less powerful at lower lift coefficients."

didn't I say more-or-less that?

[TjW]

didn't I say more-or-less that?

Yep. But:
A.) I hadn't read your post
B.) Think of who we're dealing with. Repetition won't hurt.

[Drs_Res]

<snip>

Btw, how do you embed youtube videos ?

Take the URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9euHsjl6Z0

Delete everything up to the v=:

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

So you are left with just this part:

C9euHsjl6Z0

Use the youtube tag so it looks like this:

C9euHsjl6Z0

(minus the little space in the first bracket)


Result is:

C9euHsjl6Z0

[qarnos]

I just got this email from an anti-Semitic moron named George. This is the entire content.

At 700ft or 20ft? He sure likes being specific.

[beachnut]

Here is the final proof, planes can not hit the ground when going fast, so the engineers had to invent landing gears. No one can prove me wrong!

See; without landing gear, this plane will never hit the ground and land ---
sneYFUtiKKc

Prove me wrong!

Oops

MgRX6OoDysw:jaw-dropp

9/11 Truth lives up to, "There's a sucker born every minute," P.T. Barnum

What idiot started the ground effect 9/11 truth stuff?

[qarnos]

What idiot strated the ground effect 9/11 truth stuff?

I think it was Rob Balsamo.

[mailman]

Of course. That's just a very simplistic way of explaining the result of ground effect.

-Gumboot

Come on...you know the twoofers will use this against you the next time you are debating them about the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll! :D

Mailman

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What idiot started the ground effect 9/11 truth stuff?

I believe it was P4T member John "Aliens have kidnapped 10% of US" Lear. (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/03/space-cadet.html)

[Pardalis]

The one thing they harp on about, is why didn't the jet blast from the plane blow the cars off the highway, like those demo videos.

I've come across this argument on another board. Any indication that the jet blast from flight 77 was significant?

[Gravy]

I've come across this argument on another board. Any indication that the jet blast from flight 77 was significant?No. It was well above the cars and pitched nose-down.

[rwguinn]

No. It was well above the cars and pitched nose-down.
that,plus the fact that velocity is a VECTOR!
the gasses exiting the nozzle have an exit velocity of some value, which is less than 1100fps (750mph-It is sub-sonic) The nozzle itself, however, was moving at aircraft speed in the opposite direction.
Calling the exhaust velocity positive, then:
Final Exaust velocity= Gas exit speed - Airplane speed.

[Zlaya]

All one needs to answer the kooks!
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml


ETA: D'oh Gravy!

Ouch that article is so bad, it makes 9/11 trooooofers seem reasonable and legitimate.

[Gravy]

Ouch that article is so bad, it makes 9/11 trooooofers seem reasonable and legitimate.Prove that you're not full of crap. Show what it gets wrong. I await your critique.

[jaydeehess]

Prove that you're not full of crap. Show what it gets wrong. I await your critique.

I'd be willing to bet that he/she nevers answers you with any technical response, Gravy.

[Cheap Shot]

For Gravy, and any one else: I read the link to the article on ground effect, I thought it was pretty good. Though it states that ground effect has more effect on landing than taking off I was kind of surprised. I did some research after that and found a couple tests that were all done in relation to aircraft landing and not taking off. They all pretty much supported the link you provided. It seems most of the problems occur when aircraft slow down and there is any associated turbulence the aircraft become difficult to handle.

Brings me to my question, and I may be wrong here because I assumed that the Air Florida crash in the Potomac had something to do with ground effect when the aircraft was taking off. They had false readings on the Airspeed indicator due to icing and the wings had not been deiced within prior thirty-minute requirement. But how did the aircraft takeoff if it wasn't for some type of ground effect. It obviously wasn't fast enough to stay airborne. So it would seem to me that if ground effect cause the pilot to believe they are fast enough to take off, wouldn’t it seem appropriate that ground effect is equal to if not greater a threat to departing aircraft vs. landing aircraft?

[BenBurch]

The decreased drag of ground effect does increase lift. As soon as the drag returns, the lift disappears. Or so I learned. (The only aircraft I have ever flown were an Aeronca Champion and a Cessena 180 back in the 60s, so I defer to the real pilots here if they want to correct me.)

[Reheat]

Brings me to my question, and I may be wrong here because I assumed that the Air Florida crash in the Potomac had something to do with ground effect when the aircraft was taking off. They had false readings on the Airspeed indicator due to icing and the wings had not been deiced within prior thirty-minute requirement. But how did the aircraft takeoff if it wasn't for some type of ground effect. It obviously wasn't fast enough to stay airborne. So it would seem to me that if ground effect cause the pilot to believe they are fast enough to take off, wouldn’t it seem appropriate that ground effect is equal to if not greater a threat to departing aircraft vs. landing aircraft?

Cheapshot, if I remember correctly the pitot tube had a restriction due to ice and that caused the airspeed to read higher than it actually was. It was engine EPR (thrust) that was erroneously low. Thus, they actually lifted off early, pretty close to stall speed. Then the wings had a glaze of ice which reduced lift and they just couldn't climb or stay airborne either. I also believe it was snowing/sleeting at the time which meant that they picked up more ice on the wings after they became airborne. Ground effect may have played a small part in allowing them to get airborne in the first place, but it was not a major player.

Ice on the wings introduces a whole new ball game and this incident is not good example of ground effect.

Bear in mind that on take off, airspeed is increasing rapidly and flaps are retracted shortly after T.O. whereas on landing the speed is constantly slow and full flaps are being used. Ground effect is most prominent during landing.

ETA: The engines were not developing full thrust because the crew failed to use anti-icing switchology. This exacerbated the other problems. They made a lot of mistakes on that one.....

[R.Mackey]

I've come across this argument on another board. Any indication that the jet blast from flight 77 was significant?

rwguinn has got most of the answer. The other reason is that the jet engines weren't blowing on any cars for very long -- only a few hundreths of a second, in fact. If you train a jet engine on a vehicle, it can flip, as the Mythbusters demonstrated with a 747 not long ago. But flying overhead you just don't build up a solid stream, and all you'd feel from inside the vehicle is a momentary pulse of thrust, at most. Not enough to blow you anywhere.

[jaydeehess]

Air Florida lifted off and rose well above the height at which any ground effect would be assisting lift. Thus it is unlikely that G.E. was aiding it much.

More likely the plane rose off the runway with airspeed and thrust that was barely able to get it into the air. It rose through snow and sleet which then froze to the wing adding to the icing problem already present because they had not been de-iced recently enough. With airspeed barely above stall in the best of situations and lift being further compromised by a continuing build-up of ice it could no longer remain in the air. The pilots were 'lucky' IMHO, that the plane did not stall and spin, or roll over.

As an aside;
I was in a plane sitting on the ground waiting for our turn to get in line for take off from Montreal, about a week after the A.Fla. crash. The delay was created by aircraft requiring de-icing as it was snowing really hard. We sat there for an hour and a half and NO ONE complained!:eye-poppi No one wanted to be on the news being fished out of the St.Lawrence.:cool:

[TjW]

Air Florida lifted off and rose well above the height at which any ground effect would be assisting lift. Thus it is unlikely that G.E. was aiding it much.

More likely the plane rose off the runway with airspeed and thrust that was barely able to get it into the air. It rose through snow and sleet which then froze to the wing adding to the icing problem already present because they had not been de-iced recently enough. With airspeed barely above stall in the best of situations and lift being further compromised by a continuing build-up of ice it could no longer remain in the air. The pilots were 'lucky' IMHO, that the plane did not stall and spin, or roll over.

As an aside;
I was in a plane sitting on the ground waiting for our turn to get in line for take off from Montreal, about a week after the A.Fla. crash. The delay was created by aircraft requiring de-icing as it was snowing really hard. We sat there for an hour and a half and NO ONE complained!:eye-poppi No one wanted to be on the news being fished out of the St.Lawrence.:cool:

Yep. As a general rule, it's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground.

[Pardalis]

Thanks for the responses. Makes sense. :)

[BenBurch]

Yep. As a general rule, it's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground.

Amen.

That should be on a small brass plaque in every cockpit.

[Reheat]

That should be on a small brass plaque in every cockpit.

Why is that necessary? Don't forget the pilot or pilots die a millisecond or two before the passengers! No one except jihadists intentionally wants to kill themselves.

[Zlaya]

It could be that he messed up his approach even more than we realise, and would have hit the lawn if not for the ground effect.

Dave

Did you see the FDR simulation? The approach was so steady, you tell me, did he know how to fly.

Here you are, conspiracy theorist, claiming that Hanjour flew that plane...

Didn't they just change that aspect of the Zelikow's 9/11 myth recently?

[Jonnyclueless]

There goes Zlaya with more conjecture and pretending that conjecture is some kind of evidence. Those Twoofers never seem to get it.

[beachnut]

Did you see the FDR simulation? The approach was so steady, you tell me, did he know how to fly.

Here you are, conspiracy theorist, claiming that Hanjour flew that plane...

Didn't they just change that aspect of the Zelikow's 9/11 myth recently?
What are you ranting about now? The flight was not steady, you have not seen steady if you think the flight was steady.

You still have zero facts, and no clue what happen on 9/11.

So truther, tell us who flew flight 77? If not a terrorist, who did it?

[Corsair 115]

Did you see the FDR simulation? The approach was so steady, you tell me, did he know how to fly.If he had been a truly masterful pilot, he would have dived onto the Pentagon in a dive bombing style of attack. Instead, he flew into it in a very shallow glide bombing style of attack; this is indicative of someone who is not a masterful pilot.

[MG1962]

If he had been a truly masterful pilot, he would have dived onto the Pentagon in a dive bombing style of attack. Instead, he flew into it in a very shallow glide bombing style of attack; this is indicative of someone who is not a masterful pilot.

Remembering that he went close to screwing it up as well. I dont have the link anymore - but can someone post an English translation of the Dutch doco where they put a guy in a Boeing simulator and waited to see what he could do

[Reheat]

If he had been a truly masterful pilot, he would have dived onto the Pentagon in a dive bombing style of attack. Instead, he flew into it in a very shallow glide bombing style of attack; this is indicative of someone who is not a masterful pilot.

A competent pilot would have planned the descent to arrive at the building via a near normal descent rate. The fact that both 175 and 77 did what they did is indicative of a neophyte incompetent. 77 definitely had DME to Reagan and the math couldn't be simpler. Miles per minute X Altitude to lose = Distance to begin descent @ 1000 fpm.

[jaydeehess]

A competent pilot would have planned the descent to arrive at the building via a near normal descent rate. The fact that both 175 and 77 did what they did is indicative of a neophyte incompetent. 77 definitely had DME to Reagan and the math couldn't be simpler. Miles per minute X Altitude to lose = Distance to begin descent @ 1000 fpm.

Indeed, a competant pilot would simply not have had to do the turn, instead flying straight into the Pentagon.

A truly gifted and expereienced pilot might do what Corsair says and , to maximize impact damage, dove the aircraft at a very steep angle into the Pentagon

Hanjour's choice indicates that he is both inexperienced but knows enough not to try a steep dive.

[Corsair 115]

A truly gifted and expereienced pilot might do what Corsair says and , to maximize impact damage, dove the aircraft at a very steep angle into the Pentagon.That would be my first choice if possible. With the reason being that I would know the walls of the Pentagon are thick concrete and quite strong. The roof, on the other hand, I wouldn't think is nearly as thick or as strong as the walls. Thus, crash through the roof and you're probably going to be doing a heck of a lot more damage to the inside of the building.

[A W Smith]

is this the simulation you speak of? does this look smooth to you? Notice the movements of the yoke?

DzR-q0ijbV0

[beachnut]

The greatest pilot, of course, would order up a flight of F-117s to destroy the entire building; one 2000 pound bomb at a time. (or F-111s could do as good or better; and oh so much faster and with less fuel) There would be no planes on video, or unbroken windows for a mile or so.

http://www.beachymon.com/photo/f117s.jpg
http://www.beachymon.com/photo/f111s.jpg

[Corsair 115]

[COLOR=black][COLOR=black]The greatest pilot, of course, would order up a flight of F-117s to destroy the entire building; one 2000 pound bomb at a time.What about the B-2? You'd probably only need one to do the job.

[jaydeehess]

A dive with wheels extended for stability until the last 1000 feet of vertical at which time one brings the gear up to gain velocity and pushes throttles to full would ensure the largest smoking hole you could get with the material available, and is fraught with problems that only a top gun at handling a large Boeing would be able to pull off.
Have we then established that whoever was at the controls was not a crack Boeing pilot? Yeah, I believe so.

AWSmith, most CT's just look out the window. You will give them a headache trying to point out facts.

Beachnut, I choose the F111's. They just look so much better than 117's
Use 8 of them and drop 1 2000lb'er on each wing of the Pentagon (first wave of 5 aircraft, and follow up with the other 3 and naplam the courtyard in the center. The fire will be unreachable and consume the rest of the structure from the center outwards.

The beauty of this is that if you fly a C-130 a few thousand feet above the Pentagon at the same time then everyone will be watching it and will not see the 8 F111's screaming over the top of the building.

[beachnut]

A dive with wheels extended for stability until the last 1000 feet of vertical at which time one brings the gear up to gain velocity and pushes throttles to full would ensure the largest smoking hole you could get with the material available, and is fraught with problems that only a top gun at handling a large Boeing would be able to pull off.
Have we then established that whoever was at the controls was not a crack Boeing pilot? Yeah, I believe so.

AWSmith, most CT's just look out the window. You will give them a headache trying to point out facts.

Beachnut, I choose the F111's. They just look so much better than 117's
Use 8 of them and drop 1 2000lb'er on each wing of the Pentagon (first wave of 5 aircraft, and follow up with the other 3 and naplam the courtyard in the center. The fire will be unreachable and consume the rest of the structure from the center outwards.

The beauty of this is that if you fly a C-130 a few thousand feet above the Pentagon at the same time then everyone will be watching it and will not see the 8 F111's screaming over the top of the building.
You could just use the 130 to drop a pallet bomb. The F-111 did a lot of precision stuff in the gulf. http://www.beachymon.com/photo/blu82.jpghttp://www.beachymon.com/photo/blu82drop.jpg

[Reheat]

What about the B-2? You'd probably only need one to do the job.

The only problem with the B-2 is that it can not deliver Laser Guided stuff for precision. It can only deliver JDAMS, but with 80 of those puppies (if you don't care about collateral damage) it would be awesome.

The F-117 was OK when it was first developed only because of it's "stealth" technology. It's a smart airplane, but has no greater precision delivery capability than all of the other systems in the inventory since the late 70's. Actually, less than those that can deliver Laser Guided stuff. The BIG DISADVANTAGE is that it only carries TWO BOMBS, either 500#ers or 2000#ers.

[Reheat]

Beachnut, I choose the F111's. They just look so much better than 117's Use 8 of them and drop 1 2000lb'er on each wing of the Pentagon (first wave of 5 aircraft, and follow up with the other 3 and naplam the courtyard in the center. The fire will be unreachable and consume the rest of the structure from the center outwards.

Actually, you'd need only 5 F-111's to virtually wipe out the Pentagon. I would use 500# bombs, of which they can each carry 24, one dropping a string of pairs on each wing of the building. 2000# bombs are not as good as most folks think. The casing is comparatively soft and although they have more explosive, they don't penetrate as well.

If you're going to use napalm here's the best way. One aircraft would roll in and strafe the fire alarm bell, then, after about a minute the next one would drop several cannisters of nape on the folks as they rushed outside. You'd accomplish several objectives with that technique! :covereyes

ETA: That technique worked well in SEA......against schools. One guy strafed the bell and the others dropped nape when all of the kids came outside for playtime. :crowded:

[beachnut]

Actually, you'd need only 5 F-111's to virtually wipe out the Pentagon. I would use 500# bombs, of which they can each carry 24, one dropping a string of pairs on each wing of the building. 2000# bombs are not as good as most folks think. The casing is comparatively soft and although they have more explosive, they don't penetrate as well.

If you're going to use napalm here's the best way. One aircraft would roll in and strafe the fire alarm bell, then, after about a minute the next one would drop several cannisters of nape on the folks as they rushed outside. You'd accomplish several objectives with that technique! :covereyes
Yep, we move/rebuild the Pentagon to/in Nebraska.

OMG, this reminds me (not your stuff) of an idiot who told his tanker pilots he may call on them to "take out that fuel depot with their tanker"! The boss sent him home! I would have had him demonstrate the mission solo first!

[Reheat]

Yep, we move/rebuild the Pentagon to/in Nebraska.

Yep, shoulda been there all along.....


OMG, this reminds me (not your stuff) of an idiot who told his tanker pilots he may call on them to "take out that fuel depot with their tanker"! The boss sent him home! I would have had him demonstrate the mission solo first!

Sounds like some of the rejects who came to Air Training Command during the 70's! :eek:

[BenBurch]

What about the B-2? You'd probably only need one to do the job.

Aided by one of these;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/B83_nuclear_bomb_trainer.jpg/800px-B83_nuclear_bomb_trainer.jpg

Just a sheet of glass.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The greatest pilot, of course, would order up a flight of F-117s to destroy the entire building; one 2000 pound bomb at a time. (or F-111s could do as good or better; and oh so much faster and with less fuel) There would be no planes on video, or unbroken windows for a mile or so.

The problem with this scenario is getting American pilots to follow an order to murder their brothers-in-arms.

In troofer lala-land, 50% of the US population and 100% of those in military, law enforcement or other public service, are remorseless sociopaths who will do anything to the other 50% for mere pocket change.

Out here in the real world, only 4.6% of the country are remorseless sociopaths. :p

[Reheat]

In troofer lala-land, 50% of the US population and 100% of those in military, law enforcement or other public service, are remorseless sociopaths who will do anything to the other 50% for mere pocket change.

My first reaction was "are there really people that stupid", but then immediately I realized there really and truly are people that stupid!

We'll probably hear about the "gallows humor" later!

[Zlaya]

What are you ranting about now? The flight was not steady, you have not seen steady if you think the flight was steady.

You still have zero facts, and no clue what happen on 9/11.

So truther, tell us who flew flight 77? If not a terrorist, who did it?

Dick Chaney with a remote controller?

[Zlaya]

is this the simulation you speak of? does this look smooth to you? Notice the movements of the yoke?

DzR-q0ijbV0

Notice the smooth bank angle??

Notice the perfect speed, approach and AOE??

YOU GUYS AWAKE?

[Reheat]

Notice the smooth bank angle??

Notice the perfect speed, approach and AOE??

YOU GUYS AWAKE?

Did you also fly model airplanes in your back yard as a teenager?

Well, that probably makes you and expert then!

[beachnut]

Dick Chaney with a remote controller?
When asked how flight 77 flew into the Pentagon,

you go total stupid idea post. Good research on 9/11.
Stundie, al beit weak.

This was not a good answer, but it beats asking a dumb question.

[beachnut]

Notice the smooth bank angle??

Notice the perfect speed, approach and AOE??

YOU GUYS AWAKE?
No.
No, no, and no.
Yes. (and I was premature with the stupid question stuff)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

My first reaction was "are there really people that stupid", but then immediately I realized there really and truly are people that stupid!

We'll probably hear about the "gallows humor" later!

Semi-seriously... I don't know what the actual incidence of sociopathic personality disorders is among the general public. But to create an adequate labor pool of qualified persons, who have no qualms about casually murdering thousands of people and staying silent about it, from whom the secret cabal can recruit enough skilled laborers to plant the estimated 50,000 or so demolition charges in the WTC and then clean up afterward so that no one in the WTC notices the next day, the incidence of sociopathy would have to be indescribably huge.

[Zlaya]

Did you also fly model airplanes in your back yard as a teenager?

Well, that probably makes you and expert then!

No but i do fly flight sims, and in a boeing 757, descending to the pentagon in that manner would be a difficult mission, and both you and i know that THAT was pretty darn steady, the bank angle was great, and the target was hit dead on.

And what about that question in the beginning of the FDR recording, why not just push the nose down and hit Rumsfeld in the face, instead of doing this pointless move? Because he couldn't fly a plane so well, he decided to execute a much more difficult maneuver?

[beachnut]

No but i do fly flight sims, and in a boeing 757, descending to the pentagon in that manner would be a difficult mission, and both you and i know that THAT was pretty darn steady, the bank angle was great, and the target was hit dead on.
No, it is not hard. The bank angle was crap, and who knows what he was aiming for; he forgot a lot of plane was below his EYE level. Bad aim point. Poor bank angle control, just crap all around. Who could not hit the largest office building in the world?

As usual people like you make statements about flying, but you have never flown. Kids off the street could fly the jets and hit targets as well as the terrorist without training. Since you think Dick did it, your ideas are kind of crazy on this subject, and with the zero fact, zero evidence type of 9/11 truth behavior you have demonstrated since your first post; I doubt your ideas on the subject are researched at all.

Go ahead and push over from 7000 feet on a target you can not see because it is under the control panel. Go ahead and nose over and try it in Flight Sim with your 757/767. I would practice a 25 to 35 degree dive at 25,000 feet first and see what happens. But maybe this is the only thing you could do right, dive in from 7000 feet and miss Rummy.

The pathetic p4t junk kind of marks people who mention the FDR video from p4t to be fact less 9/11 truth drones who can not think for themselves, I am sure you have seen them spewing lies on the internet.

[Magenta]

I would like Zlaya to clarify whether he thinks AA77 was remotely piloted or not. If not, who does he think was in the driver's seat? And, while I'm being wildly optimistic, I'd like him to provide some evidence for his assertions.

[Reheat]

No but i do fly flight sims, and in a boeing 757, descending to the pentagon in that manner would be a difficult mission, and both you and i know that THAT was pretty darn steady, the bank angle was great, and the target was hit dead on.

And what about that question in the beginning of the FDR recording, why not just push the nose down and hit Rumsfeld in the face, instead of doing this pointless move? Because he couldn't fly a plane so well, he decided to execute a much more difficult maneuver?

Yea, for someone who's only experience is MS Flight Simulator it might be a little tough, particularly if that person is not very bright in the first place. Since you actually have ZERO flying EXPERIENCE, you have no clue what you're talking about. All you seem to want to do is make of fool of yourself with foolish ideas and "delusions of grandeur". You are not worth spending any more time with because you have no valid ideas, no facts, and no clues. Bye.

[BenBurch]

I would like Zlaya to clarify whether he thinks AA77 was remotely piloted or not. If not, who does he think was in the driver's seat? And, while I'm being wildly optimistic, I'd like him to provide some evidence for his assertions.

My prediction;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Snodgrass_Gryllus_assimilis.png/256px-Snodgrass_Gryllus_assimilis.png

[beachnut]

I would like Zlaya to clarify whether he thinks AA77 was remotely piloted or not. If not, who does he think was in the driver's seat? And, while I'm being wildly optimistic, I'd like him to provide some evidence for his assertions.
Dick did it, he posted it above; remote control means he thinks no one was flying the jet on the flight deck. He likes to use the Fetzer approach to proof; he said it. I suspect he got this from p4t woo web sites, the "we make money my making up lies" kind of people.

[twinstead]

Am I correct in thinking that Zlaya is attempting to tell people who know what they are talking about that they are wrong?

That reminds me of my 5 year old daughter.

According to her clouds are marshmallows, and I'm an idiot for thinking anything else.

[Magenta]

Dick did it, he posted it above; remote control means he thinks no one was flying the jet on the flight deck. He likes to use the Fetzer approach to proof; he said it. I suspect he got this from p4t woo web sites, the "we make money my making up lies" kind of people.


I can no longer tell the difference between when he's posting snark and when he's posting something for serious consideration.

[Reheat]

I can no longer tell the difference between when he's posting snark and when he's posting something for serious consideration.

Did you consider that there is no difference?

[Magenta]

Did you consider that there is no difference?


On occasions he's seemed interested in discussion though he tends to disappear from threads when follow-up questions are asked of him.

And while I'm here, I have some more for him. If Zlaya believes, as he seems to from what he posted on another thread (see below), that AA77 was remotely piloted, then (1) who was on the flight deck when it crashed and (2) what happened to the original AA crew?

You could be thinking you're part of a drill, and all of a sudden you're flying on a remote controlled plane into the Pentagon.

[Reheat]

You could be thinking you're part of a drill, and all of a sudden you're flying on a remote controlled plane into the Pentagon.

He's taking a break Magenta, so I'll construct some likely scenarios....

1. The loadmaster in the rear of the the MN ANG C-130 is flying his radio controlled airplane in the rear of the empty C-130 and suddenly a TV screen drops down from the wall with a view of a 5 sided building with a river in the background and an American Airlines 757 in the foreground. His RC A/C crashes into the cargo deck and he tries to fly it, but notices that the AA 757 responds to his controls instead. He is suddenly drunk with the feeling of ultimate power to be able to control a full sized aircraft while following the orders of the L/C Aircraft Commander to attempt to land the AA airplane on top of that building. He carefully guides the AA 757 toward the 5 sided building with a river in the background because the L/C in charge of the aircraft told him to just do it and don't ask questions. He lands a little short. But, since it's a mistake and no one else is talking about it, he remains silent because he was just following orders.

2. A Lieutenant on board the super secret E4B is told that he is controlling a remote aircraft test weapon. In order to test it properly it needs to be crashed into a building which looks similar to the Pentagon, but is actually a mock-up. The Lt wants to make Captain so he follows the orders explicitly without question. The test is a success and he is promoted to Captain and is finally able to buy the new sports car he's always wanted, so he remains silent about the events of that day for fear that he'll be demoted and lose the shiny new sports car.

Sorry, I forgot we were suppose to be on the aircraft......

3. A Master Sergeant is traveling from Dulles Intl to the Pentagon West Coast on AA77 to conduct research for the DoD on the quality of drinks served by American Airlines to traveling service personnel. As a result he's flying in First Class where the drinks are free. Shortly after take off he falls asleep and does not witness the muscle men force their way into the cockpit and kill the crew. He also does not witness the men in black suits who install the remote control device into the airplanes flight control system. One of the men in a black suit hands him a remote control device and tell tells him to land the aircraft at Reagan International. He has no alternative, but to comply. In the meantime, the men in the black suits go back into the cockpit don parachutes and escape via the nose wheel well. The Master Sergeant tried to aim for Reagan, but he was a little short and hit the Pentagon.

Is there another more plausible explanation Zalya? :boxedin:

[Magenta]

He's taking a break Magenta, so I'll construct some likely scenarios....


They all seem so plausible… It's hard to think of anything that could have gone worng with any of those plans, Reheat. :p

[A W Smith]

No but i do fly flight sims, and in a boeing 757, descending to the pentagon in that manner would be a difficult mission, and both you and i know that THAT was pretty darn steady, the bank angle was great, and the target was hit dead on.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy)noted

And what about that question in the beginning of the FDR recording, why not just push the nose down and hit Rumsfeld in the face, instead of doing this pointless move? Because he couldn't fly a plane so well, he decided to execute a much more difficult maneuver?

Much more difficult? The target is the largest office building in the world. And being a pentagon shape you can't even miss by hitting near a corner. Each of its five sides is 71,000 square feet and four times wider than a face of a wtc tower. From the air it looks like a quarter mile wide donut 70 feet high with "unique target" written all over it.. How can you miss? No I don't think we are the ones who need waking up here.

[TjW]

No but i do fly flight sims, and in a boeing 757, descending to the pentagon in that manner would be a difficult mission, and both you and i know that THAT was pretty darn steady, the bank angle was great, and the target was hit dead on.

And what about that question in the beginning of the FDR recording, why not just push the nose down and hit Rumsfeld in the face, instead of doing this pointless move? Because he couldn't fly a plane so well, he decided to execute a much more difficult maneuver?

I have bad news for you, Zlaya. Real airplanes are actually easier to fly than PC simulators. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but it's true.
There's more information and better feedback to the actions you perform.
I can't fly PC sims for crap, but I have no problems flying my real, live, up in the air type airplane.

A PC-trained pilot might have tried the steep descent. A pilot with a commercial certificate has had to learn a little about aerodynamics and would have some ideas about why that would not be a good idea.
For example, if you miss your target while in a near-vertical dive, you're done, and did not accomplish what you set out to do.
But consider: even if ground effect had absolutely kept the pilot from getting down close enough to impact the Pentagon, two minutes later (assuming a standard rate turn), he could try again.

And I've never understood why ground effect would be an issue anyway. It needs to be accounted for in a landing because you want to get down and stopped in a limited amount of runway. If you're trying to run into a wall while going as fast as possible, why would it even be an issue?

[OldTigerCub]

Originally Posted by beachnut
What are you ranting about now? The flight was not steady, you have not seen steady if you think the flight was steady.

You still have zero facts, and no clue what happen on 9/11.

So truther, tell us who flew flight 77? If not a terrorist, who did it?

Dick Chaney with a remote controller?

Dick Cheney couldn't hit the right target with his shotgun. What makes you think he would be any better with a remote controlled airplane?:p

[Zlaya]

you guys all have so many questions, but none of you gave me the common courtesy of answering mine - why do the double spiral, and execute that odd approach, instead of just pushing the yoke forward 2 inches and blowing up the whole building?

a) why would someone, who can't fly, execute such pointless, time wasting and difficult maneuver?
b) was he not worried about intercepts?

[uk_dave]

you guys all have so many questions, but none of you gave me the common courtesy of answering mine - why do the double spiral, and execute that odd approach, instead of just pushing the yoke forward 2 inches and blowing up the whole building?

a) why would someone, who can't fly, execute such pointless, time wasting and difficult maneuver?
b) was he not worried about intercepts?

We ask lots of questions because it is you, the humble 'truther' who needs to explain why you don't accept the accepted account. It's not up to us to defend this account.

As for your questions, are these predicated on your belief that every action which occured on 9-11 is claimed to have been precisely what the terrorists intended?

Do you believe that people who accept the official account of events consider that the terrorists has a particular point on the wtc towers or the pentagon which they had to hit? Because, if that is your belief then, once again, you're badly wrong.

Normal, rational people accept that in an event such as 9-11, so long as the planes are successfully hijacked, the terrorists are going to win regardless of what they actually manage to hit. We know that and they know that.

Ploughing the plane into the ground just short of the pentagon would have been a victory for them. Missing the wtc towers and ploughing into wall street would have been a victory. Hell, flight 93 was still a victory despite the efforts of the passengers. But did the terrorists intend to fly the plane into the ground at shanksville? Of course not! But they still managed to hijack a passenger aircraft and kill all the passengers and crew. They won.

Take off the blinkers.

[Magenta]

you guys all have so many questions, but none of you gave me the common courtesy of answering mine - why do the double spiral, and execute that odd approach, instead of just pushing the yoke forward 2 inches and blowing up the whole building?

I believe that's been answered, at least in part, by several people:

If he had been a truly masterful pilot, he would have dived onto the Pentagon in a dive bombing style of attack. Instead, he flew into it in a very shallow glide bombing style of attack; this is indicative of someone who is not a masterful pilot.

A competent pilot would have planned the descent to arrive at the building via a near normal descent rate. The fact that both 175 and 77 did what they did is indicative of a neophyte incompetent. 77 definitely had DME to Reagan and the math couldn't be simpler. Miles per minute X Altitude to lose = Distance to begin descent @ 1000 fpm.

Indeed, a competant pilot would simply not have had to do the turn, instead flying straight into the Pentagon.

A truly gifted and expereienced pilot might do what Corsair says and , to maximize impact damage, dove the aircraft at a very steep angle into the Pentagon

Hanjour's choice indicates that he is both inexperienced but knows enough not to try a steep dive.



a) why would someone, who can't fly, execute such pointless, time wasting and difficult maneuver?


Why do you say Hanjour couldn't fly? It wasn't pointless - he needed to lose height. Please explain why a descending turn is a difficult manoeuvre.


b) was he not worried about intercepts?


No one can know what Hanjour's state of mind was.


And now, perhaps you would do me the courtesy of answering my question. Here it is again:


If Zlaya believes, as he seems to from what he posted on another thread [...], that AA77 was remotely piloted, then (1) who was on the flight deck when it crashed and (2) what happened to the original AA crew?

[Dave Rogers]

you guys all have so many questions, but none of you gave me the common courtesy of answering mine - why do the double spiral, and execute that odd approach, instead of just pushing the yoke forward 2 inches and blowing up the whole building?

Yes, if he'd been a really good pilot he probably would have done that. Seems to me like he wasn't a really good pilot. Trouble is, you want to have it both ways, so he's a useless pilot when he's a couple of miles out but suddenly turns into Maverick on the final approach. The sad thing is that you can't see the contradictions in your own story.

Dave

[BenBurch]

Yes, if he'd been a really good pilot he probably would have done that. Seems to me like he wasn't a really good pilot. Trouble is, you want to have it both ways, so he's a useless pilot when he's a couple of miles out but suddenly turns into Maverick on the final approach. The sad thing is that you can't see the contradictions in your own story.

Dave

That sums it nicely.

They surf from one position to the other without hesitation. Can anybody possibly believe both things at once?

[Zlaya]

Yes, if he'd been a really good pilot he probably would have done that. Seems to me like he wasn't a really good pilot. Trouble is, you want to have it both ways, so he's a useless pilot when he's a couple of miles out but suddenly turns into Maverick on the final approach. The sad thing is that you can't see the contradictions in your own story.

Dave

Really, that's *****, the oposite is true, and you know it.

If he were a ****** pilot, as you guys claim he was, he would have done the simplest thing - push the stick stick forward.

Instead, for some reason, he did a time consuming double spiral (2 planes have already been hijacked, remember?) What is harder, or simpler for a newbie to do, push a stick forward, or keep a almost perfect left 20 degree bank, and impact the newly renovated area. Give me a break. Especially a newbie under stress. What do you mean what kind of state of mind he was in? He was freaking out. they just hijacked 2 planes. I'm seriously getting tired of the pentagon denial here.

How can you contradict common sense. I urge you to step back and review the whitewash you're spewing... It really makes no sense.

Edited for profanity - do not try to circumvent the autocensor in public sections.

[Corsair 115]

What is harder, or simpler for a newbie to do, push a stick forward, or keep a almost perfect left 20 degree bank, and impact the newly renovated area.Let's see... push the stick forward and the jet starts to descend. Rapidly, if the nose down attitude is steep and the engines are at a high throttle setting (the 757 is very clean, aerodynamically speaking, so it has little trouble picking up speed). The thing is though you don't want to suddenly slam the stick forward because that causes negative G's and you risk a redout. The standard way of quickly getting into a dive is to roll the aircraft inverted and then pull back on the stick to go into the dive so that you experience positive G's. (The human body can tolerate considerably higher levels of positive G's than it can negative G's.)

It is worth noting that the jet is big with a lot of mass and thus a lot of inertia. So pulling out of the dive at just the right time requires good judgement and thus good flying skill. Pull out too late and the jet smacks into the ground before it levels out. Pull out too hard and you risk blacking out from the G forces or possibly damaging the aircraft.

Banking (a.k.a. turning), on the other hand, is dead simple - just hold the controls at the desired angle. That's it. As long as the wings are banked, the jet will turn. It won't be a co-ordinated turn (unless you use some rudder) but it will turn. Also, you will lose altitude in a bank unless you use a little back pressure on the stick to keep the nose level.

So, in summary, turning and losing altitude - easy. Diving rapidly while maintaining proper control over the aircraft and pulling out at the proper time - hard. You could find this out for yourself by logging some time in a real simulator.

By the way, how exactly does one identify from the air which part of the Pentagon had been recently renovated? Are there signs pointing to it?

[Slayhamlet]

Really, that's *****, the oposite is true, and you know it.

If he were a ****** pilot, as you guys claim he was, he would have done the simplest thing - push the stick stick forward.

Instead, for some reason, he did a time consuming double spiral (2 planes have already been hijacked, remember?) What is harder, or simpler for a newbie to do, push a stick forward, or keep a almost perfect left 20 degree bank, and impact the newly renovated area. Give me a break. Especially a newbie under stress. What do you mean what kind of state of mind he was in? He was freaking out. they just hijacked 2 planes. I'm seriously getting tired of the pentagon denial here.

How can you contradict common sense. I urge you to step back and review the whitewash you're spewing... It really makes no sense.

Have you learned nothing, Zlaya? Your uninformed "common sense" has failed you at every turn. You haven't gotten a single thing right, and you flee every thread when your nonsense is exposed for what it is. Do you think people aren't noticing that you're merely a swoop-n-poop troll who never backs up his/her opinion when challenged? My guess is you're very young, so perhaps there's still hope you'll grow out of this shameful and cowardly behavior.

[Reheat]

Really, that's *****, the oposite is true, and you know it.

If he were a ****** pilot, as you guys claim he was, he would have done the simplest thing - push the stick stick forward.

Instead, for some reason, he did a time consuming double spiral (2 planes have already been hijacked, remember?) What is harder, or simpler for a newbie to do, push a stick forward, or keep a almost perfect left 20 degree bank, and impact the newly renovated area. Give me a break. Especially a newbie under stress. What do you mean what kind of state of mind he was in? He was freaking out. they just hijacked 2 planes. I'm seriously getting tired of the pentagon denial here.

How can you contradict common sense. I urge you to step back and review the whitewash you're spewing... It really makes no sense.

You don't understand because you don't know what you're talking about. The guy was not a ****** pilot (whatever that means), but he had somewhere around 600 hours of flying time. Just because you think it was simpler to do a pushover does not make it so. He could not see the target from his initial position and took the conservation approach which was a descending turn.

He did a standard descending RIGHT turn with a highly variable bank angle of approximately 330 degree or so. You've invented the term double spiral perhaps taken from your idol (AJ) who called it a corkscrew. A descending standard rate turn is something that ALL pilot are trained to do during their INITIAL training. It is a simple maneuver.

I seriously doubt that he was worried about an intercept, but was concentrating on the target. According to most troofers there was nothing to worry about anyway because NORAD was standing down. You have the wonderful advantage of hindsight to speculate on all of these issue, whereas the jihadist in the cockpit that day was concentrating on accomplishing his objective of hitting the pentagon and he did.

You obviously have no clue of the terrain and buildings surrounding the Pentagon or you wouldn't continue to cherry pick your target of that recently reinforced wall. That direction was the SIMPLEST approach and you say you want him to do the simple thing. In this case he did, but you argue about it. It's convolutiing and contradictory to want what YOU BELIEVE was the simple thing to do in one case, but not in the other. You're simply over you head with no clue, no valid ideas, and no facts. Go troll at LC, that's where you belong with the other buffoons!

[Gravy]

you guys all have so many questions, but none of you gave me the common courtesy of answering mine - why do the double spiral, and execute that odd approach, instead of just pushing the yoke forward 2 inches and blowing up the whole building?

a) why would someone, who can't fly, execute such pointless, time wasting and difficult maneuver?
b) was he not worried about intercepts?Asking the same questions while repeatedly ignoring the answers you're given is a hallmark of internet trolling. Rational adults don't do that.

[Zlaya]

Let's see... push the stick forward and the jet starts to descend. Rapidly, if the nose down attitude is steep and the engines are at a high throttle setting (the 757 is very clean, aerodynamically speaking, so it has little trouble picking up speed). The thing is though you don't want to suddenly slam the stick forward because that causes negative G's and you risk a redout. The standard way of quickly getting into a dive is to roll the aircraft inverted and then pull back on the stick to go into the dive so that you experience positive G's. (The human body can tolerate considerably higher levels of positive G's than it can negative G's.)

It is worth noting that the jet is big with a lot of mass and thus a lot of inertia. So pulling out of the dive at just the right time requires good judgement and thus good flying skill. Pull out too late and the jet smacks into the ground before it levels out. Pull out too hard and you risk blacking out from the G forces or possibly damaging the aircraft.

Banking (a.k.a. turning), on the other hand, is dead simple - just hold the controls at the desired angle. That's it. As long as the wings are banked, the jet will turn. It won't be a co-ordinated turn (unless you use some rudder) but it will turn. Also, you will lose altitude in a bank unless you use a little back pressure on the stick to keep the nose level.

So, in summary, turning and losing altitude - easy. Diving rapidly while maintaining proper control over the aircraft and pulling out at the proper time - hard. You could find this out for yourself by logging some time in a real simulator.

By the way, how exactly does one identify from the air which part of the Pentagon had been recently renovated? Are there signs pointing to it?

Edited for civility
Ask anyone, what's easier turning or diving 20 degree downwards. Get outta here. You sound like you're talking about diving in a fighter jet, not 757. What are you talking about?

[TjW]

Really, that's *****, the oposite is true, and you know it.

If he were a ****** pilot, as you guys claim he was, he would have done the simplest thing - push the stick stick forward.

Instead, for some reason, he did a time consuming double spiral (2 planes have already been hijacked, remember?) What is harder, or simpler for a newbie to do, push a stick forward, or keep a almost perfect left 20 degree bank, and impact the newly renovated area. Give me a break. Especially a newbie under stress. What do you mean what kind of state of mind he was in? He was freaking out. they just hijacked 2 planes. I'm seriously getting tired of the pentagon denial here.

How can you contradict common sense. I urge you to step back and review the whitewash you're spewing... It really makes no sense.

So, Zlaya, how many actual PIC hours are you basing this opinion on?

[jaydeehess]

If he were a ****** pilot, as you guys claim he was, he would have done the simplest thing - push the stick stick forward.

He was not agreat pilot but knew enough to perform a pretty standard desending turn rather than a high angle dive from 7000 ft. The high angle dive you so dearly expect he would have chosen would have been the absolute best way to NOT hit the Pentagon.

Instead, for some reason, he did a time consuming double spiral (2 planes have already been hijacked, remember?)

As pointed out his main concern was in doing everything he could manage to hit the building. that means a desending turn and a low angle approach in which he would have the most control over where the a/c went and what it did.

What is harder, or simpler for a newbie to do, push a stick forward, or keep a almost perfect left 20 degree bank

To hold a steady bank. He did have quite a bit of correcting in that bank though indicating his lack of experience on type. If he had that amount of problem holding a steady bank what the heck makes you think he could maintain control in a high angle dive? freakin' ridiculous!

and impact the newly renovated area.

Yeah because you draw the bullseye on the building after he hits it:rolleyes:

Especially a newbie under stress. What do you mean what kind of state of mind he was in?

Really? He expected and accepted his death when he boarded the plane. He expected that it would come quick and painless and that moments afterward he would be rewarded for his efforts by his God. Is that the stress you refer to, the state of mind?

How can you contradict common sense. .

You demonstrate none.

[Zlaya]

He was not agreat pilot but knew enough to perform a pretty standard desending turn rather than a high angle dive from 7000 ft. The high angle dive you so dearly expect he would have chosen would have been the absolute best way to NOT hit the Pentagon.



As pointed out his main concern was in doing everything he could manage to hit the building. that means a desending turn and a low angle approach in which he would have the most control over where the a/c went and what it did.



To hold a steady bank. He did have quite a bit of correcting in that bank though indicating his lack of experience on type. If he had that amount of problem holding a steady bank what the heck makes you think he could maintain control in a high angle dive? freakin' ridiculous!



Yeah because you draw the bullseye on the building after he hits it:rolleyes:



Really? He expected and accepted his death when he boarded the plane. He expected that it would come quick and painless and that moments afterward he would be rewarded for his efforts by his God. Is that the stress you refer to, the state of mind?



You demonstrate none.

7000 feet high altitude dive, in a 757? It would take a 30 degree pitch down to hit that...

You make it sound like he dove from 20000 feet, 2 miles out, like losing 7000 feet in a 757 is a big deal...

Stop pretending you're all high and mighty, and admit that it's easier to just dive, instead of doing a complicated spiral.

[HL7442]

So, Zlaya, how many actual PIC hours are you basing this opinion on?




Flight Sim games don't count.
Btw to answer your question Zlaya, a descending turn is best, a dive is more difficult. This is something that even the hijackers realized.

[Reheat]

Quoted post removed

Wow! The epitome of projection!

Ask anyone, what's easier turning or diving 20 degree downwards. Get outta here. You sound like you're talking about diving in a fighter jet, not 757. What are you talking about?

Give us the numbers that makes you think it was a 20 degree angle that was required. What would be the descent rate at that pitch attitude? You're such an expert then show us the numbers to convince us that you know what you're talking about.

Have you ever even once been in an aircraft that had a 20 degree nose down pitch angle?

[beachnut]

7000 feet high altitude dive, in a 757? It would take a 30 degree pitch down to hit that...

You make it sound like he dove from 20000 feet, 2 miles out...

Stop pretending you're all high and might, and admit that it's easier to just dive, instead of doing a complicated spiral.
Not even close. The easiest thing for a new pilot is to make the simple easy turn to loose 5000 feet so he can line up with a 4 to 6 degree glide slope, which is still STEEP! A normal glide slope to land is 3 (three) degrees. The 25 degree glide path you suggest is stupid since the terrorist pilot has never flown a real 757/767 at a 25 degree nose low attitude.

You have stupid questions and no clue about flying. What do you know about 9/11 that is not wrong? You lack practical knowledge on 9/11 and flying. You must of learned about flying from the nut cases and brain dead drones at p4t.

You also missed the facts a pilot who was good at flying would calculate the descent gradient to be a the Pentagon at a reasonable angle (not 25 to 35 degrees) without a turn! One day you may learn something, but you never listen to anyone but the delusional idiots of 9/11 truth.

Your ideas and posts are pure NUTS.

[HL7442]

Can you imagine the physical discomfort the hijacker would've felt making a 20-30 degree dive from level flight as Zlaya suggests?

[Zlaya]

Not even close. The easiest thing for a new pilot is to make the simple easy turn to loose 5000 feet so he can line up with a 4 to 6 degree glide slope, which is still STEEP! A normal glide slope to land is 3 (three) degrees. The 25 degree glide path you suggest is stupid since the terrorist pilot has never flown a real 757/767 at a 25 degree nose low attitude.

You have stupid questions and no clue about flying. What do you know about 9/11 that is not wrong? You lack practical knowledge on 9/11 and flying. You must of learned about flying from the nut cases and brain dead drones at p4t.

You also missed the facts a pilot who was good at flying would calculate the descent gradient to be a the Pentagon at a reasonable angle (not 25 to 35 degrees) without a turn! One day you may learn something, but you never listen to anyone but the delusional idiots of 9/11 truth.

Your ideas and posts are pure NUTS.

You're in a fantasy land. 5 degree nose down pitch? Maybe in a cessna, in a 757, you can make easy 30 degree nose down, people wouldn't even notice.

Seriously, what is easier, down spiral, or pushing stick forward 2 inches, and picthing 30 degrees nose down?

You can't escape the facts...

[jaydeehess]

Ask anyone, what's easier turning or diving 20 degree downwards. Get outta here. You sound like you're talking about diving in a fighter jet, not 757. What are you talking about?

A 20 degree dive in a fighter would likely be easier than in a 757, trim on a fighter is a lot less variable.

Pitch control would be crucial and to that end the trim used at cruise would cause problems in a steep dive. Adjusting trim just makes what you claim is easier, more complicated.

Nosing down for a high angle dive is likely a precursor to inverting and entering a spin.

[Reheat]

Can you imagine the physical discomfort the hijacker would've felt making a 20-30 degree dive from level flight as Zlaya suggests?

Heck, 30 degrees is not even that comfortable after years of dive bombing!

[Reheat]

7000 feet high altitude dive, in a 757? It would take a 30 degree pitch down to hit that...

You make it sound like he dove from 20000 feet, 2 miles out, like losing 7000 feet in a 757 is a big deal...

Stop pretending you're all high and mighty, and admit that it's easier to just dive, instead of doing a complicated spiral.

I think this kid is about to overdose! Seriously, you need help.

Sane people not on drugs simply can not be this stupid!

[jaydeehess]

You're in a fantasy land. 5 degree nose down pitch? Maybe in a cessna, in a 757, you can make easy 30 degree nose down, people wouldn't even notice.

Seriously, what is easier, down spiral, or pushing stick forward 2 inches, and picthing 30 degrees nose down?

You can't escape the facts...

You can't seem to find any facts.

Answers Reheats questions. Let's get some numbers!

[Zlaya]

A 20 degree dive in a fighter would likely be easier than in a 757, trim on a fighter is a lot less variable.

Pitch control would be crucial and to that end the trim used at cruise would cause problems in a steep dive. Adjusting trim just makes what you claim is easier, more complicated.

Nosing down for a high angle dive is likely a precursor to inverting and entering a spin.

what? rotate trim wheel down a bit, push forward two inches, and boom, Top Brass is done. No, instead, i'll hold this 20 degree left bank for 270 degrees, no worries, i got time...

[HL7442]

You're in a fantasy land. 5 degree nose down pitch? Maybe in a cessna, in a 757, you can make easy 30 degree nose down, people wouldn't even notice.

Seriously, what is easier, down spiral, or pushing stick forward 2 inches, and picthing 30 degrees nose down?

You can't escape the facts...




Nice try Zlaya but no dice.
You have no aviation knowledge whatsoever and it shows.

[Reheat]

what? rotate trim wheel down a bit, push forward two inches, and boom, Top Brass is done. No, instead, i'll hold this 20 degree left bank for 270 degrees, no worries, i got time...

Where are the numbers? Two inches, is that all?

BTW: I believe if you'll check it was a RIGHT turn not LEFT. But, at least you're consistent with nothing right.

[Zlaya]

You can't seem to find any facts.

Answers Reheats questions. Let's get some numbers!

There's a 3, which is III in roman. There's also 10, which is X, and 5 which is V.

I know more numbers.

Somehow i find it hard to believe that it's easier to do a turn, than to dive forward a bit...

Basic flying, come on.

[AZCat]

In the 757, 10 degrees is the suggested attitude when initiating a manual emergency descent (6 degrees when maintaining target speed). I find it difficult to believe that 30 degrees would not be noticeable.

[Zlaya]

Nice try Zlaya but no dice.
You have no aviation knowledge whatsoever and it shows.

I do, not as much as many here, but i do.

You have not said anything impressive so far, let's see it.

What's easier, dive, or turn?

[beachnut]

You're in a fantasy land. 5 degree nose down pitch? Maybe in a cessna, in a 757, you can make easy 30 degree nose down, people wouldn't even notice.

Seriously, what is easier, down spiral, or pushing stick forward 2 inches, and picthing 30 degrees nose down?

You can't escape the facts...
Your posts are NUTS, and your ideas on 9/11 flying are NUTS. Pure NUTS!
The only other source as NUTS as your ideas, is Pilots for 9/11 truth – p4t. They are all dolts when it comes to 9/11.

30 degrees, as you pass MACH 1, you would notice. F is for failed in flying.

[HL7442]

Basic flying, come on.




Yeah doing FS9 on your PC.:rolleyes:

[Zlaya]

In the 757, 10 degrees is the suggested attitude when initiating a manual emergency descent (6 degrees when maintaining target speed). I find it difficult to believe that 30 degrees would not be noticeable.

Thats an absolute made up number.

10 Degree would be a standard descent. You make it sound like it's some emergency procedure. Why are you people kicking and screaming about this so much. Admit it, it makes no sense for a poor pilot to initiate a complex turn, in favor of just diving...

[Zlaya]

Yeah doing FS9 on your PC.:rolleyes:

No, FSX. With HOTAS. When i'm not really flying.

Keep rolling the eyes.

[AZCat]

Thats an absolute made up number.

10 Degree would be a standard descent. You make it sound like it's some emergency procedure. Why are you people kicking and screaming about this so much. Admit it, it makes no sense for a poor pilot to initiate a complex turn, in favor of just diving...

It's an abnormal procedure. Seriously - are you typed in any aircraft?

[HL7442]

You have not said anything impressive so far, let's see it.

What's easier, dive, or turn?




I know more than you concerning aviation.

Dive or turn.........TURN while descending hopefully keeping the target in sight the whole time.

[Zlaya]

Your posts are NUTS, and your ideas on 9/11 flying are NUTS. Pure NUTS!
The only other source as NUTS as your ideas, is Pilots for 9/11 truth – p4t. They are all dolts when it comes to 9/11.

30 degrees, as you pass MACH 1, you would notice. F is for failed in flying.

Wow, namecalling! Didn't hear that one before from you beachNUT :)

Mach 1? Now Flight 77 was flying faster than the speed of sound?

What's easier, dive, or turn, regardless of what speed you're going at?

[HL7442]

Admit it, it makes no sense for a poor pilot to initiate a complex turn, in favor of just diving...



Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

Btw in your opinion what makes a descending turn soooo complex.:rolleyes:

[Zlaya]

Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

Btw in your opinion what makes a descending turn soooo complex.:rolleyes:

It's not complex. But it's MUCH

a) quicker
b) easier

to just dive into the building. Thats my point.

[jaydeehess]

what? rotate trim wheel down a bit, push forward two inches, and boom, Top Brass is done. No, instead, i'll hold this 20 degree left bank for 270 degrees, no worries, i got time...

Of course he has time. What's the alternative? Intercept? ,, and what will they do. shoot him down. Hell, that's even better than hitting the target, forcing the US military to do the killing.:eek:

So yeah, rotate the trim wheel, how much? Too much and you pitch down too far and invert and spin out. Too little and you have difficulty staying on target. How much time do you have to get it right?

At 30 deg, you have 2.29 horizontal miles to go, 2.65 miles along the slope. Less than 30 seconds!!
Oh, yeah, much easier:rolleyes:

[beachnut]

In the 757, 10 degrees is the suggested attitude when initiating a manual emergency descent (6 degrees when maintaining target speed). I find it difficult to believe that 30 degrees would not be noticeable.
Talk about going real fast! You would quickly exceed all limits. Especially if you nose over from cruise speed. Like the poor student who did a split S from cruse speed and ripped off his wings!

I could get you 15,000 feet per minute, but I would have to slow down, get the gear down, then raise the speed brakes, and then nose over to 15 degrees, and then adjust the pitch to maintain a speed allowed with the Gear down. But I would quickly be at the max speed and have to reduce the angle if needed!

You are right, gee, at 6 degrees you would still have to watch your speed! At 3 degree I can give you 300 KIAS without engines! This poor guy is too much into the woo of 9/11 truth and I think the idiots at pilots for truth have got a hold on his ideas. So far he spew only 9/11 truth lies and a few new ideas too crazy for even 9/11 truth. He just makes it up. And what is harder, a turn or a dive is a STUPID question.

Never ever, let this guy behind the controls of a jet! It would be the last flight.

You sound like the manual on the 757/767.

[jaydeehess]

It's not complex. But it's MUCH

a) quicker

yep less than 30 seconds (and that's being kind, its closer to 20 seconds) to get it right as opposed to 3 minutes the other way


b) easier

just plain wrong!

[HL7442]

It's not complex. But it's MUCH

a) quicker
b) easier

to just dive into the building. Thats my point.



Your point is noted and thrown out.



Next......

[AZCat]

Talk about going real fast! You would quickly exceed all limits. Especially if you nose over from cruise speed. Like the poor student who did a split S from cruse speed and ripped off his wings!

I could get you 15,000 feet per minute, but I would have to slow down, get the gear down, then raise the speed brakes, and then nose over to 15 degrees, and then adjust the pitch to maintain a speed allowed with the Gear down. But I would quickly be at the max speed and have to reduce the angle if needed!

You are right, gee, at 6 degrees you would still have to watch your speed! At 3 degree I can give you 300 KIAS without engines! This poor guy is too much into the woo of 9/11 truth and I think the idiots at pilots for truth have got a hold on his ideas. So far he spew only 9/11 truth lies and a few new ideas too crazy for even 9/11 truth. He just makes it up. And what is harder, a turn or a dive is a STUPID question.

Never ever, let this guy behind the controls of a jet! It would be the last flight.

You sound like the manual on the 757/767.

That's good, 'cause I cobbed it from some guy who has the 757 manual. The only manuals I have are LR-Xs, and I have no idea where they are (a box in storage, probably).

757 emergency descent is idle throttles, speedbrakes extended at target 0.86M, unless mechanical trouble or turbulence requires a lower limit, but you got all that already! ;)

[beachnut]

It's not complex. But it's MUCH

a) quicker
b) easier

to just dive into the building. Thats my point.
You are wrong. Too bad.

Who told you it would be better to do a 30 degree dive on the Pentagon. Who backs up your ideas on this? (jdx? lol)

[Zlaya]

Talk about going real fast! You would quickly exceed all limits. Especially if you nose over from cruise speed. Like the poor student who did a split S from cruse speed and ripped off his wings!

I could get you 15,000 feet per minute, but I would have to slow down, get the gear down, then raise the speed brakes, and then nose over to 15 degrees, and then adjust the pitch to maintain a speed allowed with the Gear down. But I would quickly be at the max speed and have to reduce the angle if needed!

You are right, gee, at 6 degrees you would still have to watch your speed! At 3 degree I can give you 300 KIAS without engines! This poor guy is too much into the woo of 9/11 truth and I think the idiots at pilots for truth have got a hold on his ideas. So far he spew only 9/11 truth lies and a few new ideas too crazy for even 9/11 truth. He just makes it up. And what is harder, a turn or a dive is a STUPID question.

Never ever, let this guy behind the controls of a jet! It would be the last flight.

You sound like the manual on the 757/767.

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.

[Minadin]

I've got all of about 5 hours of flight time under my belt - and that in a single engine prop plane, over 10 years ago - but I think that even I would be able to crash a passenger plane into one of the largest buildings in the US without much more than an overview of the controls. A short amount of time in a decent simulator ought to suffice for that. Not that I can imagine ever wanting to do so.

[Zlaya]

You are wrong. Too bad.

Who told you it would be better to do a 30 degree dive on the Pentagon. Who backs up your ideas on this? (jdx? lol)

Common sense does.

Wink wink, get a clue.

[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.
Oops, you missed jdx. You never were good at flying.

[beachnut]

I've got all of about 5 hours of flight time under my belt - and that in a single engine prop plane, over 10 years ago - but I think that even I would be able to crash a passenger plane into one of the largest buildings in the US without much more than an overview of the controls. A short amount of time in a decent simulator ought to suffice for that. Not that I can imagine ever wanting to do so.
I think you are correct. I trained pilots for upgrade in the KC-135, and I agree with you. I put some kids in a simulator and they easily hit the WTC without any prior flight time or training. Someone who has flown could do it easy.

I have talked to many airline captains, some in the 757/767, they agree with you also.

[Reheat]

Nice photo of a glass cockpit. I wonder how long that dive was held NOT AIMED at the Pentagon? Nah, I really don't want to know at all. I already know.







ETA: Pssssst! Not long enough!

[Zlaya]

Nice photo of a glass cockpit. I wonder how long that dive was held NOT AIMED at the Pentagon? Nah, I really don't want to know at all. I already know.







ETA: Pssssst! Not long enough!

What are you talking about, diving onto the pentagon would have been easier and quicker, especially for a bad pilot.

Stop kidding around with me, you're insulting your intelligence. If you think that this would have harder than doing the turn, you're no pilot at all...

[Slayhamlet]

What are you talking about, diving onto the pentagon would have been easier and quicker, especially for a bad pilot.

Stop kidding around with me, you're insulting your intelligence. If you think that this would have harder than doing the turn, you're no pilot at all...

No, no it wouldn't. Find a single pilot who agrees with the ridiculous nonsense you call "common sense".

[HL7442]

Zlaya, the last time I checked Boeing hadn't equipped their 757 with dive brakes for dive bombing.

Also you put an airplane in a 30 degree nose down dive from level flight and everything including your hijacker compadres are gonna hit the ceiling then be flung back down, unable to move from G force.
A simple dive as you suggest is absurd and not a stable controlled descent to your target.

[Zlaya]

Zlaya, the last time I checked Boeing hadn't equipped their 757 with dive brakes for dive bombing.

Also you put an airplane in a 30 degree nose down dive from level flight and everything including your hijacker compadres are gonna hit the ceiling then be flung back down, unable to move from G force.
A simple dive as you suggest is absurd and not a stable controlled descent to your target.

Only if you jerk the stick down. You'll feel almost nothing if you smooth into the dive.

You're making it sound like you're attempting to dive bomb like in 1942...

WTF!

[HL7442]

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.




Oh my God Zlaya put up a Sim shot to prove his point................that's gold Jerry.........gold!!:D

[HL7442]

I also noted in the bottom right corner of your little game a red flag appeared saying "Overspeed"...........hmmmm not good when your flying the real thing.
Can you give me a pic from Asteroids showing how easy it is to destroy real asteroids in space?

[AZCat]

Oh my God Zlaya put up a Sim shot to prove his point................that's gold Jerry.........gold!!:D

I'm surprised it hasn't been Stundied yet. I was shocked myself when I saw the post (although I should have known better).

[Zlaya]

Oh my God Zlaya put up a Sim shot to prove his point................that's gold Jerry.........gold!!:D

30 pitch down in a sim isthe same as 30 pitch down in real life. Dive is easy, compared to a complex turn hanjour did.

get over yourself, you don't know what you're talking about. You have given nothing in rebuttal, just smart ass comments..

[Reheat]

This discussion is a futile endeavor, like mud-wrestling with a pig — it is a waste of time because you cannot win and the pig enjoys it.

[AZCat]

30 pitch down in a sim isthe same as 30 pitch down in real life. Dive is easy, compared to a complex turn hanjour did.

get over yourself, you don't know what you're talking about. You have given nothing in rebuttal, just smart ass comments..

We used to joke about the garbage we got in the data files from the aircraft manufacturers for the simulators where I worked. This was for Class C and D simulators (the full motion rigs) not your silly little computer game.

First lesson: simulator is not real life.

[Zlaya]

We used to joke about the garbage we got in the data files from the aircraft manufacturers for the simulators where I worked. This was for Class C and D simulators (the full motion rigs) not your silly little computer game.

First lesson: simulator is not real life.

Reallity called, you didn't pick up.

FSX is as good as any modern simulator.

30 degree dive is not a big deal in 757, and it's much quicker and easier than a 20 degree shallow dive bank hanjour supposedly did. You are yelling and screaming but not making any sense.

Fact is that it would have been easier to just dive straight into the pentagon, than to do the complex turn.

Get over yourself, and face facts.

[HL7442]

30 pitch down in a sim isthe same as 30 pitch down in real life.
You have given nothing in rebuttal, just smart ass comments..




Bwahahahahhahaha!!!!! Oh man your a card!

I love to pat myself on the back when it comes to airplane talk..........I've been an aviation fan since I was little.


I figured you tried your theory on a FS game..........but it's a game Zlaya. You have pilots on here telling you that your theory is bogus.

[HL7442]

face facts.




Uh well then realize the FACT that Hanjour did a descending turn and move on.

[AZCat]

FSX is as good as any modern simulator.

You might want to check with the FAA on that - they have a thing or two to say about flight simulators. See, your pissant little program is not what qualifies as a flight simulator, nor is it even a flight training device. Maybe you should not try to argue about subjects with which you are not familiar.


CFR Title 14, Part 141
Section 141.41 Flight simulators, flight training devices, and training aids

An applicant for a pilot school certificate or a provisional pilot school certificate must show that its flight simulators, flight training devices, training aids, and equipment meet the following requirements:
(a) Flight simulators. Each flight simulator used to obtain flight training credit allowed for flight simulators in an approved pilot training course curriculum must—
(1) Be a full-size aircraft cockpit replica of a specific type of aircraft, or make, model, and series of aircraft;
(2) Include the hardware and software necessary to represent the aircraft in ground operations and flight operations;
(3) Use a force cueing system that provides cues at least equivalent to those cues provided by a 3 degree freedom of motion system;
(4) Use a visual system that provides at least a 45-degree horizontal field of view and a 30-degree vertical field of view simultaneously for each pilot; and
(5) Have been evaluated, qualified, and approved by the Administrator.
(b) Flight training devices. Each flight training device used to obtain flight training credit allowed for flight training devices in an approved pilot training course curriculum must—
(1) Be a full-size replica of instruments, equipment panels, and controls of an aircraft, or set of aircraft, in an open flight deck area or in an enclosed cockpit, including the hardware and software for the systems installed that is necessary to simulate the aircraft in ground and flight operations;
(2) Need not have a force (motion) cueing or visual system; and
(3) Have been evaluated, qualified, and approved by the Administrator.
(c) Training aids and equipment. Each training aid, including any audiovisual aid, projector, tape recorder, mockup, chart, or aircraft component listed in the approved training course outline, must be accurate and appropriate to the course for which it is used.

[beachnut]

30 pitch down in a sim isthe same as 30 pitch down in real life. Dive is easy, compared to a complex turn hanjour did.

get over yourself, you don't know what you're talking about. You have given nothing in rebuttal, just smart ass comments..
Please explain the complex turn. Let me talk you through this! You see the Pentagon way down there. You turn right at 7000 feet pull back on the throttles a little and you loose about 5000 feet by the time you turn around in a 10 to 20 mile radius turn, you end up exactly where you were at the start of the turn, it is like two U-turns in your car, not the best planning, but since it is hard to get a experience diving at 30 degree because your jet goes 750 mph in the dive, then the 360 degree turn, is a great idea since you messed up your descent plan because you never had one in the first place, because you are a terrorist idiots as dumb as 9/11 truth member who are stupid too. Double dumb!.

So if you can tell me why a basic no brain maneuver, the turn, is complex. You calling a simple turn complex is a stupid statement!

a complex turn hanjour didStupid statement! Why do you make such a stupid statement? Who are you to make such a dirt dumb, stupid statement?

[HL7442]

What boggles me about Zlaya's thought process(apart from the obvious) is why he, she, it claims Hanjours descending turn was "complex".
But hey we're dealing with twoofers who cherry pick info, spin it, and base these ideas upon their amateur knowledge of aviation.


I have to say I laughed at the FS screenshot.........a true twoofer move.

[beachnut]

This discussion is a futile endeavor, like mud-wrestling with a pig — it is a waste of time because you cannot win and the pig enjoys it.
I was doing a quick check, and the jet quickly overspeeds in a 30 degree dive when you enter at cruise speed. I am not sure if I could handle a 30 degree dive and hit a target, it might work, but Hani would have no experience in the maneuver, but the very simple 360, would be a piece of cake. Our super armchair pilot has no idea what he is talking about. I would like to see him find an airport, let alone the Pentagon on a real summer day. The terrorist had the weather on their side. Had 9/11 been a hot summer day with some real haze, Hani may of never found the Pentagon! 9/11 was a bad day, but at least some we have some Americans who figured out 9/11 in minutes and took action. Too bad 9/11 truthers are so stupid they can NOT figure out 9/11 after 6 years, and will never take any action.

Flight 93 passengers in minutes figured out 9/11; Zlaya has messed it up with 6 years and appears to be diverging from reality with every minute.

[Reheat]

There is no way a 757 can enter a 30 degree dive and not gain airspeed very, very rapidly beginning from cruise speed EVEN WITH IDLE POWER. About the only way to do it is what you suggested, slow down, gear extended, idle power. Then it might be possible.

But, the problem is that Hanjour had never seen that kind of attitude even in the small aircraft that was the bulk of his experience. 30 degrees in a 757 would have scared the bejesus out of him and that's exactly why he elected to do the altitude losing descending turn. It was a very smart move on his part and resulted in his success. I seriously doubt he could have managed the descent to hit the building from where he began that turn.

I've seen enlisted technicians do miraculous thing in a simulator that would be impossible in an actual aircraft. Here, we're talking about a silly PC game. That's suppose to prove something? Well, only to a troofer and perhaps many of them are not even stupid enough to be fooled. Well....

I continue to be amazed at the level of stupidity shown and it's being outdone daily.

[Zlaya]

There is no way a 757 can enter a 30 degree dive and not gain airspeed very, very rapidly beginning from cruise speed EVEN WITH IDLE POWER. About the only way to do it is what you suggested, slow down, gear extended, idle power. Then it might be possible.

But, the problem is that Hanjour had never seen that kind of attitude even in the small aircraft that was the bulk of his experience. 30 degrees in a 757 would have scared the bejesus out of him and that's exactly why he elected to do the altitude losing descending turn. It was a very smart move on his part and resulted in his success. I seriously doubt he could have managed the descent to hit the building from where he began that turn.

I've seen enlisted technicians do miraculous thing in a simulator that would be impossible in an actual aircraft. Here, we're talking about a silly PC game. That's suppose to prove something? Well, only to a troofer and perhaps many of them are not even stupid enough to be fooled. Well....

I continue to be amazed at the level of stupidity shown and it's being outdone daily.
You guys are so far out of your skull in denial it's starting to worry me.

Here we are, discussing why hanjour didn't just dive into the pentagon, instead of doing the whole turn, and you fools are trying to insult my intelligence by claiming that it's somehow difficult to do this, or it's outside of safety treshold for this airplane.

You guys are a joke, and anyone reading this thread sees it.

You have 0 idea what you people are talking about, but as long as you keep calling people names, it makes you feel good about yourself - so you feel victorious.

"dive breaks"... give me a break

[uk_dave]

Zlaya,

Why should the terrorist care about the time it takes for him to lose altitude and line up with his target? Why rush into a steep dive at high speed with a greater chance of being off by a degree or two and actually missing?

He's going to die anyway, so being intercepted merely puts his adversary in the position of having to shoot down a civilian passenger jet over a populated area. He wins.

So, he can take the time to line up properly with the intended target and give himself a better chance of hitting it than rushing in and possibly losing control of the plane in the process. Of course, even in that scenario he still wins because he's going to hit something, even the parking lot, but I don't see why you think he needed to rush the attack.

Well actually, I do see why you think that, but it is more to do with your desperate need to believe the ct fantasy than any considerations of reality.

[Zlaya]

Why should the terrorist care about the time it takes for him to lose altitude and line up with his target? Why rush into a steep dive at high speed with a greater chance of being off by a degree or two and actually missing?

Why would a terrorist chose to execute a move which would waste more time, and do less damage, instead of one that would decapitate the top brass and would be quicker and easier??

This whole thing about 'being off by a degree' makes no sense but then again, none of your arguments ever make any sense, do they.

[beachnut]

There is no way a 757 can enter a 30 degree dive and not gain airspeed very, very rapidly beginning from cruise speed EVEN WITH IDLE POWER. About the only way to do it is what you suggested, slow down, gear extended, idle power. Then it might be possible.

But, the problem is that Hanjour had never seen that kind of attitude even in the small aircraft that was the bulk of his experience. 30 degrees in a 757 would have scared the bejesus out of him and that's exactly why he elected to do the altitude losing descending turn. It was a very smart move on his part and resulted in his success. I seriously doubt he could have managed the descent to hit the building from where he began that turn.

I've seen enlisted technicians do miraculous thing in a simulator that would be impossible in an actual aircraft. Here, we're talking about a silly PC game. That's suppose to prove something? Well, only to a troofer and perhaps many of them are not even stupid enough to be fooled. Well....

I continue to be amazed at the level of stupidity shown and it's being outdone daily.
I have too, they did magic in the sim.

I think Zlaya does not understand what Hani did due to watching JDX's stupid video (best guess; or he is JDX acting normal).

[Zlaya]

I have too, they did magic in the sim.

I think Zlaya does not understand what Hani did due to watching JDX's stupid video (best guess; or he is JDX acting normal).

Not sure who or what JDX is, but it seems you don't like him, it so much. But same goes for you and common sense and logic.

[beachnut]

Why would a terrorist chose to execute a move which would waste more time, and do less damage, instead of one that would decapitate the top brass and would be quicker and easier??

This whole thing about 'being off by a degree' makes no sense but then again, none of your arguments ever make any sense, do they.
That is due to the fact you do not understand simple stuff, like a degree at 60 miles is ~ 6000 feet! You my non pilot, or stupid pilot, are very dumb on flying stuff!

Learn the 60 to 1 rule first; go get flight training; then after you get an engineering degree and have 4000 hours in heavy aircraft; please come back and try again.

Your ideas continue to be pure NUTS.

[Zlaya]

That is due to the fact you do not understand simple stuff, like a degree at 60 miles is ~ 6000 feet! You my non pilot, or stupid pilot, are very dumb on flying stuff!

Learn the 60 to 1 rule first; go get flight training; then after you get an engineering degree and have 4000 hours in heavy aircraft; please come back and try again.

Your ideas continue to be pure NUTS.

Just verbally mastrubating, and calling me names does not constitute debating. You make no sense, and you know it. I think you do it on purpose.

I'm telling you, diving is easier than turning and diving. Why is that so difficult to accept?

[HL7442]

Why would a terrorist chose to execute a move which would waste more time,



It would ensure a better chance of success. It would also be more stable, thus easier to manage for a novice pilot. I descending turn is quite easy and less stress on the airframe and not physically demanding on the pilot.

[beachnut]

Not sure who or what JDX is, but it seems you don't like him, it so much. But same goes for you and common sense and logic.
What are you trying to say? No, JDX says the same things you are saying. He has similar nut case ideas on 9/11 and flying like you do. You picked up word for word from his video; acting dumb is not your best lie now. But it is par for you.

I am sorry you are not making sense. But JDX is just a pilot who does not know what happen on 9/11; like you, expect you claim you are not a pilot, therefore you are not as bad as JDX since he is a pilot. Your errors are due to ignorance, JDX errors are just lies so he can sell them on his pathetic DVDs only idiots believe.

You have failed to explain your stupid "hani did a complex turn" stuff. Please explain what is complex about a turn?

[Zlaya]

It would ensure a better chance of success. It would also be more stable, thus easier to manage for a novice pilot. I descending turn is quite easy and less stress on the airframe and not physically demanding on the pilot.

Hmmm, let me see, so hanjour didn't want to stress the airframe, so he did the turn?

And he purposfully wanted to hit the side of the building, instead of the roof?

Listen, i think you're just purposefully denying everything i say, just because you can. Well you still don't make any sense, and your arguments are pointless.

Consider getting professional help. and some basic flying lessons..

[beachnut]

Just verbally mastrubating, and calling me names does not constitute debating. You make no sense, and you know it. I think you do it on purpose.

I'm telling you, diving is easier than turning and diving. Why is that so difficult to accept?
Learn how to spell your favorite pastime please. You can not spell your favorite hobby and you can not understand flying. Good job.

Please explain what is complex about the turn Hani did.

Diving at 30 degrees is not easier than doing a 330 to 360 degree turn. You are not learning yet. Go get a book and show me where it describes a 30 degree dive for a large aircraft like a 757. Please tell me the normal procedures so you do not over speed the aircraft in a 30 degree dive.

[Zlaya]

You have failed to explain your stupid "hani did a complex turn" stuff. Please explain what is complex about a turn?

It's not complex. The point is that i'm saying that the turn is MUCH MORE complex than just pushing the stick forward and diving. You guys are claiming that the turn is easier than just dive. You guys are claming that a 30 - 40 degree down pitch dive is somehow outside of safety limits, or that it puts too much strain on a novice pilot.

You guys are high. Anyone who says that a turn is easier than a dive is either high or has never touched a flight yoke.

Read my original argument, stop whining and accept reality.

[beachnut]

It's not complex. The point is that i'm saying that the turn is MUCH MORE complex than just pushing the stick forward and diving. You guys are claiming that the turn is easier than just dive. You guys are claming that a 30 - 40 degree down pitch dive is somehow outside of safety limits, or that it puts too much strain on a novice pilot.

You guys are high. Anyone who says that a turn is easier than a dive is either high or has never touched a flight yoke.

Read my original argument, stop whining and accept reality.
No, you said complex turn.

Oops, now it is not complex. You learned something, or you are changing your failed story!

Now the turn is not complex; how many ips are in on this NUTS posting stupid ploy that mirrors the ideas from the nuts at pilots for 9/11 truth!?

[Zlaya]

No, you said complex turn.

Oops, now it is not complex. You learned something, or you are changing your failed story!

Now the turn is not complex; how many ips are in on this NUTS posting stupid ploy that mirrors the ideas from the nuts at pilots for 9/11 truth!?

I never claimed that it's complex. The whole time i claimed that it's simply more complex than diving.

Just because you can't read, doesn't make you cute. It makes you sad.

[beachnut]

10 Degree would be a standard descent. You make it sound like it's some emergency procedure.

Why are you people kicking and screaming about this so much. Admit it, it makes no sense for a poor pilot to initiate a complex turn, in favor of just diving...
Oops, no 10 degrees is very steep.

And the COMPLEX is your idea.

Now you are a sad liar. for a poor pilot to initiate a complex turn

Zlaya said for a poor pilot to initiate a complex turn

Complex turn! Please explain what is complex about the turn, and try to remember the stupid posts you make.

[Zlaya]

Oops, no 10 degrees is very steep.

And the COMPLEX is your idea.

Now you are a sad liar.

Zlaya said

Complex turn! Please explain what is complex about the turn, and try to remember the stupid posts you make.

You're a complete fool. Don't you know that you're just attacking symantecs now? Can't you see that my whole point was that the dive is less complex than a turn, why do you continue to insist to sound this ignorant?

Please, stop bothering me, i'm done with your ignorant self.

[AZCat]

You're a complete fool. Don't you know that you're just attacking symantecs now? Can't you see that my whole point was that the dive is less complex than a turn, why do you continue to insist to sound this ignorant?

Please, stop bothering me, i'm done with your ignorant self.



I don't think beachnut has anything against the software company.

[beachnut]

You're a complete fool. Don't you know that you're just attacking symantecs now? Can't you see that my whole point was that the dive is less complex than a turn, why do you continue to insist to sound this ignorant?

Please, stop bothering me, i'm done with your ignorant self.
You have failed, and you said complex turn. Please explain what is complex about the turn?

The dive is more complex due to the fact he never practiced a 30 degree nose down dive. I flew large jets for thousands of hours and I do not know a single pilot who practiced a sustained dive greater than 15 degrees.

Who do you know who has practiced a 30 degree dive?

Who do you know how has held an airliner in a 10 degree dive in clean configuration for a sustained period?

I trained many pilots as an Air Force Instructor to fly heavy jets. You singularly have the dumbest ideas I have seen on flying in 34 years of flying. You are singularly the most ignorant person I have met anywhere on flying topics.

Does anyone agree?

[Zlaya]

You have failed, and you said complex turn. Please explain what is complex about the turn?

The dive is more complex due to the fact he never practiced a 30 degree nose down dive. I flew large jets for thousands of hours and I do not know a single pilot who practiced a sustained dive greater than 15 degrees.

Who do you know who has practiced a 30 degree dive?

Who do you know how has held an airliner in a 10 degree dive in clean configuration for a sustained period?

I trained many pilots as an Air Force Instructor to fly heavy jets. You singularly have the dumbest ideas I have seen of flying in 34 years of flying. You are singularly the most ignorant person I have met anywhere on flying topics.

Does anyone agree?

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.

[AZCat]

Does anyone agree?

Yes.

[Corsair 115]

Quoted post removed Roffle. Trim is for cruising, not high speed dives and sharp, hard maneuvering.

By the way, just wondering, how much time in a real simulator have you had? Ever flown up front on the jump seat on a flight?

Ask anyone, what's easier turning or diving 20 degree downwards.I told you - banking is easy, just turn the controls to the amount of bank you want and the airplane will turn. It really is that simple. A 20° nose down angle in a passenger jet is A LOT. Considering that a 757 can descend at up to 1,800 feet per minute with idle engine power and no nose down attitude, it doesn't take much to see that with a 20° nose down attitude and full thrust it would lose altitude FAST.

From this (http://www.757.org.uk/index.html) web site about the Boeing 757, note this introductory passage from the section about the proper procedures for a normal descent:

Due to the low drag of the advanced technology wing, proper descent planning is necessary to arrive at the desired altitude at the proper speed and in the correct configuration. In zero wind the distance required for the descent (in nautical miles) is approximately four times the altitude loss (in thousands of feet).

Here's what it mentions about deceleration of the aircraft:

It takes approximately one minute to decelerate from VMo to 280 knots and one minute from 280 knots to 210 knots in level flight, with no speedbrakes and thrust at idle.

Put all this together, and if you point the nose of a 757 downwards at a 20° angle with full power, it is going to pick up speed very quickly.

[Zlaya]

Roffle. Trim is for cruising, not high speed dives and sharp, hard maneuvering.

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

I told you - banking is easy

Sure is. Is it easier than diving? No.

You fail at reality.

[funk de fino]

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.

Another stupendous example for the lurkers of the nuts of the truth movement. Carry on Zlaya, you are only helping the debunkers cause.

Not nice to be caught telling lies is it?

[Zlaya]

Another stupendous example for the lurkers of the nuts of the truth movement. Carry on Zlaya, you are only helping the debunkers cause.

Not nice to be caught telling lies is it?

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?

[beachnut]

It's not complex. The point is that i'm saying that the turn is MUCH MORE complex than just pushing the stick forward and diving. You guys are claiming that the turn is easier than just dive. You guys are claming that a 30 - 40 degree down pitch dive is somehow outside of safety limits, or that it puts too much strain on a novice pilot.

You guys are high. Anyone who says that a turn is easier than a dive is either high or has never touched a flight yoke.

Read my original argument, stop whining and accept reality.
No, your original argument is lost in stupid posts. You said complex turn. Since a turn and a dive are not really different in complexity, your complex turn becomes a stupid statement and saying a turn is more complex than a dive is also stupid.

Saying a 30 degree nose down dive is simple is a stupid statement since I told you placing a large aircraft in a 30 degree nose low pitch will destroy the plane after it goes past MACH 1. One Air Force officers I flew with was on a plane with his wife when the plane pitched down, the aircraft fell apart in flight killing all well before it hit the ground.

Because the plane would quickly over speed in a steep dive, you have made the dive of 30 degrees much more complex of a maneuver for Hani, than a turn (which he has done in the sim and many times in little airplanes) vs. a steep dive he has never ever tried. I would go on and explain why, but you are not very good at learning new stuff, it seems you like the video done by JDX from the FDR of flight 77 found in the Pentagon. His video sucks. You have mentioned many of the idea in the p4t video; the video sucks. All the ideas in it are stupid. You spew these ideas freely, I suspect you are from p4t and just a troll who likes the made up lies of 9/11 truth. Wallow in ignorance and forget you said complex turn, but no, the turn is not more complex than a dive, I have almost busted check rides for dives, turns are a pilots first major maneuver, dives get you in trouble, they are more complex in the mind, you see the simple turn saved Hani because he messed up the complex dive; it is called a descent in flying terms for serous pilots. Airline pilots make descents, not dives. Sorry you lost this one, and until you get some education on the subject you will fail to understand flying and 9/11.

[Zlaya]

No, your original argument is lost in stupid posts. You said complex turn.

Compex in comparison to a dive.

Saying a 30 degree nose down dive is simple is a stupid statement since I told you placing a large aircraft in a 30 degree nose low pitch will destroy the plane after it goes past MACH 1.

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

]Because the plane would quickly over speed in a steep dive, you have made the dive of 30 degrees much more complex of a maneuver for Hani, than a turn

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.

[Corsair 115]

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.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.

No trim is for trimming a climb, descent, or staying cruising. None of which qualifies as hard maneuvering, does it? That's all well within the normal flight operations of an aircraft.

You fail at reality.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.

[LashL]

You're a complete fool. Don't you know that you're just attacking symantecs now? Can't you see that my whole point was that the dive is less complex than a turn, why do you continue to insist to sound this ignorant?

Please, stop bothering me, i'm done with your ignorant self.

Says some random twoofer who hasn't the slightest clue about that which he/she speaks, who lacks even the most basic ability to comprehend the subject matter at hand, and who apparently doesn't even know that the tinhatter JDX, whose nonsense he repeats, is a liar who has grossly exaggerated his credentials.


While *cough* Zlaya's posts might, arguably, provide an interesting view of the conspiracy fantasist mindset, his/her posts are actually pretty boring, given that everything ""Zlaya" has posted to date was thoroughly debunked long ago.


And, by the way, Zlaya, Symantec != semantic.

88.

[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.

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.

[Zlaya]

Says some random twoofer who hasn't the slightest clue about that which he/she speaks, who lacks even the most basic ability to comprehend the subject matter at hand, and who apparently doesn't even know that the tinhatter JDX is a liar who has grossly exaggerated his credentials.


While *cough* Zlaya's posts might, arguably, provide an interesting view of the conspiracy fantasist mindset, they are actually kind of boring, given that everything ""Zlaya" has posted to date has been thoroughly debunked long ago.


And, by the way, Zlaya, Symantec != semantic.

88.

Really, i don't know, nor do i care who JDX is.

Do you also think a dive is easier to execute than a turn?

Wanna jump on that insanity train as well?

All aboard!

[AZCat]

Trust me<snip>

That's the point - we don't. And we have good reason not to.