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 Leto
A simple and almost worthless associate's degree. What are your credentials?
Originally posted by AgentSmith
I'm not sure why some people are having problems coming to terms with the size of the aircraft? Is it because it's nowhere near as big as they imagined?
Originally posted by The Iconoclast
How does that jet manage to maintain enough lift to keep it airbourne while travelling so close to the ground at such a high rate of speed? It wouldn't. The plane would have splashed itself all over the lawn. Especially after taking out several light standards on the way. There must be enough space between the ground and the airframe to keep the vehicle aloft. Measuring the jet as if it is on a run way is not practical as there is NOT enough air in that particular scenario to keep the plane aloft.
I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads. The DVD, “Loose Change – 1st Edition” contains an excellent clip of trucks being blown off the end of a runway when a jetliner powers up for take-off—and that was from the jetblast alone, not the combined effect of wake turbulence and jetblast, as in the case of an aircraft flying on the deck at 400 MPH.)
Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.
The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.
Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor.
For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.
At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)
...In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH - and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.
source - physics911.net
Originally posted by eudaimonia
Originally posted by ANOK
Problem is Smith your perspective is wrong in that pic.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's called Ground Effect. Once you get to approximately the same altitude as your wing span, the air bouncing off the ground as the plane moves forward comes back up and hits the wings and fuselage. This causes the plane to not want to descend farther unless you shove the controls forward. At high rates of speed until you actually impact the ground the plane will try to bounce back up until you're back above the altitude of your wingspan. You can either control it by hand, or set the trim so that the plane will keep the same altitude or descend.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
I've talked to a few pilots that at times were below 100 feet as they went through those valleys. Even if you throw away those examples, what about the C-130s and C-17s. They fly at 40 feet or less doing low level vehicle drops. It IS possible to do low level in a heavy plane. It's not EASY, but it's entirely possible. Aerodynamics don't change just because you're in a heavier plane. You're going to get a wickedly hard ride that low because of the ground effect, but you're going to be able to fly that low.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Originally posted by ANOK
Problem is Smith your perspective is wrong in that pic.
Is the perspective about as far off as the perspective presented by the "No-757" crowd and commentaries within this topic thread, ANOK?
Originally posted by Seekerof
seekerof