A reply to: Zaphod58
Nice to see you pop-in, once and a while again.!
My remarks on your 2 videos :
1. See the 42 to 44 secs position in your 747 video, he clearly flies with full landing flaps out, thus, in landing configuration, while Flight 77
flew fully clean.
2. The KC-135 has in my opinion also its flaps out, and also flies distinctively slower than Flight 77 flew over the lawn, which the "recovered" DFDR
indicated as 534 MPH, about 850 or so KMH.
3. Both your examples indeed flew for at least 100 meters within ground effect, which is btw stronger at lower speeds than at higher speeds, where it
however still is of importance for a manually flying pilot handling a 850 KMH flying wide wing 757-200 at 9 to 3 meters high.
I've studied a lot of YouTube videos and found an awful lot of jet fighter pilots who flew their planes really fast at ridiculous low heights (smile).
So, why do wide body/wide wing pilots fly much slower, in landing configuration (flaps fully out) and not so extremely low above soil.? The price of
those planes do not differ that much...so it's not that they are less daring because of a too expensive toy.
It's something to do with that half-wingspan physics flight rule, I'm sure. The bigger the wing, the higher you must stay from soil, or you get in
4. Especially the French KC-135 goes really low. And flew a lowest part of a parabola flight path, to be able to ascend again, gaining speed in the
downward part of it, levels out and go full throttle upwards again.
This could also have been done by Flight 77 without going up again, but the DFDR indicates that the pilot flew all the way from the top of the Navy
Annex down to the first floor slab's column 14, manually, without any assistance of the safety precautions/settings of the three autopilot settings
(1st officer, center and 2nd officer AP settings) and with no flaps at all (would have been ripped off at that speed) at 850 KMH in dense air.
Which AP settings seem to me, logically to be used by the 747 and KC-135 pilots, I assume even at those lower speeds. Their superiors will not be
pleased if they crash, and their DFDR shows they flew manually.
5. Especially that diagram of the last 5 secs of Flight 77, I posted 2 pages back or so, makes me wonder, if in case the last part of that DFDR was
altered by someone, if he was a tad bit too laborious by adding all those fluctuations in the last 4.5 secs. A human pilot can not correct such strong
bumping fluctuations fast enough at 850 KMH, software + hardware (AP) can, however.
It indicates thus IMOP, probably very fast CORRECTED bumping up and down, or as the author of that diagram thinks, fluttering of measuring
Look at the placement of the Pitot tubes on the hull of a 757 in my post above my
, they are too sturdy IMHOP, just as the hull there, also
Normally an accelerometer will measure proper-acceleration, not the Pitot tubes, which measure coordinate-acceleration (rate of change of velocity).
And how could an accelerometer flutter? It's placed inside the cockpit in the instrument panel and measures acceleration in G, just as is indicated at
the Y-axis in that diagram.!
6. There's another thing which already many years make me wonder if logic is absent in most OS trusters.
Why do most of them post all the time that it's obvious that Hani Hanjour did not need to learn to LAND, only to fly to a distinct way point.
While it's as clear as crystal, that he INDEED planned and performed a damn near perfect LANDING.! He ended up at 3 meters high with that 757 its nose
cone, into the second floor slab.! Whoever flew that plane remotely was an ACE.! And the name was for sure not Hani...His instructors at the last
Flight School he attended send a complaint to the FAA, telling them that the guy had very poor English and flying skills, and that they therefor
thought that his license papers must have been falsified. No reaction back....Strange indeed.