It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12
Because there's no way to exactly measure the height, unless they have an crystal clear photo of the aircraft. Otherwise it's an estimate based on data from the FDR.
The plane was flying low when it hit the Pentagon, why would they measure a standstill plane on a runaway?
originally posted by: roadgravel
The plane was flying low when it hit the Pentagon, why would they measure a standstill plane on a runaway?
Seems you are confusing the technical data/diagram measurements with someone's reporting. The runway measurements refer to the tech data. It gives the physical dimensions of the aircraft.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12
And if they are using 44 feet 7 inches high, for a 757 height, what makes you think they're not using the same 20 feet 6 inches from the ground to the top of the fuselage? How ELSE are they going to get that exact same measurement that is used in the planning document?
originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: Jacobu12
Absolutely, I agree the plane was just 1-2' off the ground when it impacted, maybe even less than that. I can see the cross-section profile of the plane in the pic you're using as an avatar and, if you study the construction of a 757 regarding where the most massive and strong components (wing box and keel beam) are it all makes sense. Those components are in the bottom of the fuselage btw so that battering ram would have hit below the level of that floor that's barely hanging on with its support columns smashed out.
originally posted by: roadgravel
Some math from the specs:
Fuselage height - 13" 2'
Ground to top 20" in debate then:
That leaves a max of just under 7 ft, ground to underside, level ground.
Engines are about 2" 5' above ground if the top is at 20" 6' - so about 2 foot at 20"
If the wings are not level, that would change of course. I think it was said there was a 5 degree bank at the end.
originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Jacobu12
That is from the Boeing specs. Zaphod posted a link.
If we count wheels the plane has a longer length
originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: Zaphod58
I haven't seen anyone bring up the radio altimeter in this thread so far which would be the most reliable indicator of ground clearance when extremely close to terra firma. The final reading from memory was about 4 feet.
originally posted by: roadgravel
If we count wheels the plane has a longer length
How do wheels make an aircraft "longer". Maybe you are talking about height.
Those I posted were of mins but the difference sitting with less weight are only less then a foot. Th engine clearance is stated to vary 5 inches with a less load on the landing gear.
originally posted by: Jacobu12
originally posted by: Pilgrum
originally posted by: Jacobu12
That's the pic you posted earlier in the argument about 'blue tints'
Note carefully the position of the engines in relation to the fuselage IE the centre shaft of the turbine is barely below the bottom of the fuselage so, assuming an engine diameter of 8', there'll be maybe 4.5' of engine to add to the fuselage height of about 12.5' giving us a height of 17' roughly from the bottom of the engines to the top of the fuselage.
The 20.5' figure is from the bottom of the wheels to the top of the fuselage. Also note that the wheels will be a bit higher on the ground because the weight of the plane compresses the suspension/shock absorbers.
Now, if the bottom of the engine is within 1-2' of the ground, how far above ground would the keel beam I mentioned be?
This is getting a bit tiresome - might have to join Zaphod at the bar for a break myself