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 elevatedone
wouldn't the plane react the same way if it was being controlled by remote as the same as if a person was actually flying it from the cockpit?
Originally posted by elevatedone
wouldn't the plane react the same way if it was being controlled by remote as the same as if a person was actually flying it from the cockpit?
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
But as far as hitting the towers, at 208 feet wide I believe, how is that too precise for humans? I'm agreeing with elevated one here. I mean, how wide is the average runway?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
But as far as hitting the towers, at 208 feet wide I believe, how is that too precise for humans? I'm agreeing with elevated one here. I mean, how wide is the average runway?
Show me a pilot landing at 600 MPH and I'll take this into consideration over professional opinions.
Originally posted by sy.gunson
Clearly the terrorists were not concerned about overstressing the airframe.
First of all the fastest plane United 175 which hit the south Tower was not doing 600mph. MIT analysis revealed that it struck at 537mph which is a mere 466 knots.
The first plane American 11 struck much slower at 372 knots. Clearly the "brothers" in the second plane saw that the first had not brought down the building so they poured on the herbs hoping that greater speed would fell the other building.
Second the significance of VMO (Velocity Maximum Operating) is that it is a certified limit below which the manufacturer certifies that you will not overstress the airframe. It is not an aerodynamic limit as such.
Next point. The instructional simulator pilot was a Boeing 737 procedural iinstructor. His brief was to teach young inexperienced pilots with the ink still wet on their Commercial Pilot Licences how to perform cockpit drills and fly by standard proceedures. He was not teaching students advanced flying techniques.
Third if you're going to talk about simulation of the WTC attack, compare apples with apples, not oranges. The 767 has more mass and a heavier aircraft is less susceptible to the problems spoken of (aileron reversal and flutter) due to mass inertia.
In the NTSB animation of the attack on the Pentagon the aircraft was stabilsed on it's descent. All pilots know about a stabilised descent. That is where you steady the aircraft and have it pointed, descending at a predictable rate, so that the inputs required thereafter are only minor.
Clearly in the NTSB animation of the Pentagon attack, the pilot was making corrections for aileron flutter.
One has to say that the hijackers flew their attacks quite competently and with aggression.
Originally posted by piacenza
sy.gunson you got served big time... Well I am sure that you will be so competent to debate Jhon point by point. I love when this happens.
[edit on 3-7-2007 by piacenza]
johnlear wrote:
466 knots is not 'mere'. Its 787 feet per second.
johnlear wrote:
It is an aerodynamic limit which will activate the overspeed warning horn which is very loud and very annoying and its made that way so that there is no misunderstanding about what it means. It means 'you are going too fast." To suppose that an inexperienced hijacker was flying a profile with incredible skill at 787 feet per second with the overspeed warning horm blowing is to ignore reality. It could not happen and it did not happen.
Source