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.

 

Can a 767 Fly 500MPH @ 700ft Altitude? Boeing Official Says: Ha Ha Ha! Not a Chance!

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
There is no fundemental diferance between the flying dynamics over a Cessna 172, besides the fact that the Cessna 172 had torque and P-facter, that a 767 doesn't have. Sure, the 767 may be faster, but why does it matter? They handle the same, and with such a large target it's not like you're going to see it at the last minute.



Your profile seems to suggest that you are 15 years old. This all makes much more sense now.




posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin-d
Your profile seems to suggest that you are 15 years old. This all makes much more sense now.


Well I’m not 15, and I am telling you the exact same thing.
By the time I was 18, I was working on the exact type of aircraft which we are discussing in this thread. Jimmey has a very solid knowledge of aircraft and aviation, by anyone’s standard.

So he is 15, that means that right now he can fly an aircraft with an instructor, and within the next year he can solo an aircraft. It means that he is older then the majority of the Japanese pilots we were just discussing. It means that in the next three years he can enter the military and be flying jets for them.

I would not underestimate someone based on age when they make very logical, lucid, and intelligent posts. What you have said here is HIGHLY inappropriate, IMHO.


Originally posted by justin-d
The g-forces are nothing to scoff at when you're pulling hard banks at 500 knots in sea-level soup. The avionics totally change at those speeds since the computers start throttling deflection limits to avoid damage - the dynamics and response of the plane change, the wind noise would be extreme and intimidating, vibration and turbulence would be magnified like crazy - this isn't a cakewalk we're talking about.


First off, there is no set speed at which an aircraft is going to start to disintegrate, there are safety tolerance limits based on testing done to similar aircraft. The limits set by the FAA and aircraft manufacturer are based on the weakest point on the entire aircraft being hit by a bird, that being the windshield. No two aircraft are exactly the same, and no two parts have the exact same tolerances. As long as a part is over a certain tolerance then it is ok to be used, and some parts exceed those specs by more then others. Same thing goes with your car, you can run two identical cars and have one car go 100K and the other go 200K before having problems with them. Planes often exceed the their tolerance levels and are still fine, patched up and sent back on their way. They may lose a couple of panels, have control surface damage, or bend their frame, but none of these things will hurt the aircraft in the long run. I have personally worked on aircraft where the frame was bent to such a point that you could stand at the nose and look to the tail and see the curve in the aircraft. I have seen aircraft lose flaps, lose engines, blow tires, land with gear doors open, and much more, yet still make it home in one piece.

Also there are different airspeeds we are dealing with here. There is Groundspeed, Indicated Airspeed, Calibrated Airspeed, Equivalent Airspeed, and True Airspeed, which one exactly are we talking about in this thread? It is entirely possible to have a Groundspeed of 500 knots while the aircraft has a True Airspeed much lower with a tailwind.

Additionally, you talk as though the pilots were doing barrel rolls at 500 knots, which is not the case, especially at the WTC. The approaches were pretty much straight in, shallow dives into the structure, no fancy flying involved. The aircraft would not have been exceeding any speeds for a long enough period to even have time for there to have been an issue with it. Even if the aircraft had started to lose parts in that dive, inertia would have carried them toward the building. Had the aircraft suffered total structural failure at that point, we would have seen the exact same results, as inertia would have carried it to the target, maybe lower down, but still to the same location.

[edit on 9/27/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
*Yawn*.

You have yet to explain the fundemental difference between flying at 350 knots and 500 knots except using car examples which have no influence on an airliner.


The kamikazes had less than 8% success rates. Let's give these guys the benefit of the doubt and say they would each have had a 50% probability of hitting their target. Over three planes, statistically, it means the aggregate probability of 100% success is 12.5% I'm not a betting man, but if I was...

8%, big deal. Them statistics are severely skewed if you're interpreting them as success rates on hitting objects. The Zero had a 950 horsepower engine and a very light body. To be frank, I'm surprised that many even managed to get off the ground with the overwhelming P-factor and torque that engine puts out.

After a percentage of those aircraft crashed on thakeoff, the remaining Zeros would be diving into large amounts of Flack cannons. The USS Missouri which got hit, for example:
upload.wikimedia.org...
Had EIGHTY 40mm Anti Aircraft gun complemented by another FORTY NINE 20mm Anti Aircraft guns. It's damn lucky that 8% of pilots with no training managed to get through guns and hit carrier groups such as that, even though they were struggling just flying the aircraft.

Last time I checked, the hijackers were not being shot at by 129 Antiaircraft guns, nor were they trained in cardboard boxes like the Japanese were. If a small percent of Japanese managed to get through, why shouldn't someone with training be abled to hit a target many times the size of a ship? Maybe they wern't prepared for flying at 550 knots, however, there are no dramatic changes in the aircraft handling at such speeds, and even if there was, it's not like you really have to search or maneuver to aim for two buildings that are almost half a kilometre high, and 70 metres wide.

I do beleive it would be fairly easy, a large poportion of pilots agree with me (airliners.net). I've flown aircraft, including warbirds (two seat), and have time on a Level-D sim for Qantas. There are no profound diferances in handling with speed in any of those planes, I don't expect a 767 to be the slightest bit diferant.


It means that in the next three years he can enter the military and be flying jets for them.

Be flying jets? No. Will be flying jets? Yes. :-).

[edit on 27/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn



It's possible a real plane was used but veered off near the tower using optical camouflage. See here for some information I put together...
www.911researchers.com...


Um, no, It never veered off, it went wobbly into the towers. it moved from right to left; left to right alot, but it still crashed.

You do realize in order to create a 3d hologram you'd need 8 light projectors? And for that matter, in a circle around it? Seeing as there was no gigantic plane sized lights, you phail. (the lights would have to be big in order tokeep the aspect ratio good and no distortions on the model)

Sorry pal. I saw a dot miles away approach and hit the towers. No hologram, present or to come, can do this as clouds, sky distance, and all that great stuff would kill it's quality. Holograms are laughable at best. You do realized many of the vids are fake though, hence providing inaccuracies, as the gov wanted you to be angry and fight.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I think that it is quite apparent that a 767 can trqvel 500 mph even at 0ft. Let's say that there is a 767 that is flying 500mph toward the ground. Is there some force that I am not aware of that would preclude a gravity and turbine assisted dive of 500mph, especially if the plane can go 500 mph on a level flight path?

I was also wondering if the plane could have been traveling at 450 mph. I do not think 500 nominal +,- 100 mph would have made much of a difference.

I think we can all agree that it was a horrific tragedy and we can all hope or pray that something like that never happens again to anyone.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I was on the pier in Newport, Jersey City watching the whole thing. Out of my left field of vision came a plane. It was a plane and it was big enough to be a commercial jet (I grew up around air craft and had been reading Janes ATWA starting when I was 10). I unfortunately cannot tell you the airline or any markings because I don't really remember, although sometimes I just see it as a solid gray plane when I think about it (not scientific)... I am sure that you can understand that I knew right away we were in a attack and not paying much more attention... priorities of survival. I will say that the plane came in from south (left shoulder with me facing the towers) over NJ at basically level flight and turned into the direction of the south tower passing over (as I remember also behind) the Statue of Liberty and the leveled out as it passed over Battery Park. It was not in a steep dive to maintain speed. No way was it in a dive as it reached the Hudson on the Jersey side... no way...I would have remember that because it really look premeditated level controlled flight.

Hope this helps the discussion



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Mistake in previous report of south tower hit... I meant right shoulder facing the towers.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

First off, there is no set speed at which an aircraft is going to start to disintegrate, there are safety tolerance limits based on testing done to similar aircraft.

etc..


I don't disagree. In fact, I think I quantified that point earlier, but to be clear, I don't reasonably expect that any 767 save an exceptionally poorly constructed or maintained one could not have flown the way they did on 9/11. Wind was calm that day, so IAS, ground, and true air speed would have been basically the same at 700ft, but again, to be clear, of course I'm always referring to IAS.

As for Jimmy's claim that a 767 won't handle any different running 50% over VMO, that's complete nonsense. That's like saying a plane won't fly any different at 300kts if you drop the flaps two levels - it's WAY overspeed and you're carrying too much lift. Add in all sorts of other complications at those speeds too - if he's switched from an old "ball" system (sideslip) in a pre-glass 172, then switching to an EFIS (side force) opens up problems like sequential over-yaw from cycling the pedals too hard. If he trained in a 737 class D then the control inputs throttle back when you're outside safe manoeuvering speed - switching to a 767, where the avionics throttle and you need full control deflection to command the limited surface movement, there's another unfamiliarity you don't want popping up at 500kts, hurtling towards your target. The list goes on.

Let's not forget, as well, that these guys were, on the testimony of their instructor, absolutely terrible pilots. Nobody wanted to even let them rent their 172s they were so bad. And yet they surmounted all of that with top-gun precision, in three planes? Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, but you'll have a very hard time convincing me that it was probable.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
But don't take my word for it - straight from the horse's mouth, here's an excerpt from a Boeing Fl.Ops. technical bulletin :

Additionally, there may be misconceptions among transport pilots about the use of
flight controls, how aircraft may be maneuvered, and what are the structural load
capabilities of transports. These misconceptions may be due to previous experience
with other aircraft classes or configurations (e.g., tactical military aircraft, small
General Aviation (GA) aircraft). Such misconceptions could lead transport pilots to
attempt maneuvers in unusual situations that could make the situation worse and
introduce excessive risk The issue is further compounded by the limitations in
simulator fidelity that may cause pilots to assume some maneuvers are feasible and
repeatable.

Transport pilots should be made aware that certain prior experience or training
in military, GA, or other non-transport aircraft types emphasizing the
acceptability of unrestricted dynamic control application typically does not
apply to transport aircraft or operations. Excessive structural loads can be
achieved if the aircraft is maneuvered significantly different than what is
recommended by the manufacturer or the operator’s training program.



I think the hot-dogging we saw on 9/11 would constitute an "unusual situation".


[edit on 27-9-2007 by justin-d]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
To me it seems like some of you don't know the first thing about physics. You quote laws and this and that but have no clue what impact it actually has, and I mean mathematically. Physics is mathematical if you don't know math you can only know what others tell you. What is wrong with that? That you have to form your own opinion on subjects and you should not be relying on somebody else that may just be wrong.

And whoever said that comment about a Cessna 172 and Boeing 767 having the same handling is ridiculous. They have NOWHERE NEAR the same handling. Airliners have to take such a huge traffic pattern before landing that has to be miles out from the airport. While a 172 does not need to why, because they don't fly the same!! Do you realize how much longer it takes to turn a 767? I assume you don't because otherwise you would not have posted a comment like this.

And I am tired of hearing the thing about tornadoes, objects are embedded in trees and w/e because they bend not because they were propelled with such a force to get in there. But I do believe that a 747 hit the twin towers, and that it went through and most was destroyed in the initial explosion and the rest was destroyed during the controlled demolition with explosives.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I couldn't quite figure out the 172=767 thing either. I mean, they both have a yoke and pedals, I guess, but the 172 practically hangs in the air - it's agile and almost lightly acrobatic. A 767 flies like a whale in comparison - it stalls practically at the 172s VMO for goodness sake!

[edit on 27-9-2007 by justin-d]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I'm guessing that cruising at 500 mph and 700 feet is impossible, but going down at a steep slope could make that happen.
The inside of the plane was probably like a 50 magnitude earthquake.
But i guess the terrorists had some good control reducing the drag on the wings.

Normally, the descend is at 2-3 degrees, the pilot was probably descending at 30+ degrees. THe plane was literally an oversized missile.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by die_another_day]


six

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
 

Also , not to mention, the kamakazis were trying to hit MOVING targets..not stationary.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Fett Pinkus


Originally posted by hikix
reply to post by CB_Brooklyn
 




I'd love to know who came up with this hologram theory, probably some idiot living on a farm with too much time on his hands.




Actually it was John Lear right here on ATS



Yes it was me. And yes, I may be an idiot but I don't live down on a farm. I live in Sunrise Manor, just south of Nellis Air Force Base, at the foot of Frenchman Mountain (sometimes, and erroneously referred to as 'Sunrise Mountain') here in Las Vegas.


Ok, so it was an idiot living in the middle of the desert!! I'm Just Kidding!
John, as much as I love ya, my brain just cannot process the fact that holograms caused all of this! I think this is a theory that can never be explained and it's just going to make everyone else confused. I agree that the U.S government most likely has technology decades ahead of what the normal public currently has, and they may even possess E.T technology but it is nearly impossible to try to ration with a normal citizen that they did not see real planes hit the building!



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   
This is a very good thread and I have read all the comments but I would like to add the following.

If the jets that hit the towers were real or not is not important, what is important that thousands of people are spending their time debating it. The debate should be why were thousands of people murdered for the purpose to propogate war. We are like children entralled by the illusionist, while we are distracted by the one hand the other creates the deed.

Many find it hard to accept that their goverment or those who control it are capable of murdering large numbers of their fellow citizens. They are too easily distracted from those who commited those crimes. Its like debating what type of projectile was thrown through your car window in order to steal the vehicles contents, the projectile is irrelevant but the contents are not.

The Towers and their contents were completyly obliterated, vaporised in parts, the only power known to us civies that can achieve such destruction are nukes, yes exoctic weapons may have been used but we have no real knowledge of them.

I think people look at this event from ther wrong perspective, what we should do is put our minds in the minds of the perps, in other words plan such an event, how could it be pulled off how and what methods would you employ to mislead and hoodwink the people. I personally think we are all right to a degree, yes/no their were planes , yes there were explosives inside, yes there was thermite, all those things were there because thats exactley what the perps wanted us to see. Muddy the waters so much that we will spend decades debating the subject whilst those who commited those crimes get away scot free.

If only all the effort that is spent on these debating was harnessed and focused on the Goverment it would be the first step in finding out what really happened. But again I think we all know the answer dont we, the old trick was used was it not, kill your own people make it look like it was your potential enemy that did it and use it as a pretence to go to war.

A war waged for oil, religious beliefs, power, proffit and greed and as a bonus some new bases close to your new and upcoming rivals, China, EU, Russia and India.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
But again I think we all know the answer dont we, the old trick was used was it not, kill your own people make it look like it was your potential enemy that did it and use it as a pretence to go to war.

A war waged for oil, religious beliefs, power, proffit and greed and as a bonus some new bases close to your new and upcoming rivals, China, EU, Russia and India.


The neocons have been worried about China and Russia for years, 911 offered a once in a lifetime oppertunity.

Prevent China or Russia from making deals with Saddam by linking Iraq to the war on terror.

As far as killing your own people and make it look like your potential enemy, that is within the realm of possibility.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly




Prevent China or Russia from making deals with Saddam by linking Iraq to the war on terror.

As far as killing your own people and make it look like your potential enemy, that is within the realm of possibility.


But china and Russia are allied to Iran, Iraq's worse enemy !?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

As far as killing your own people and make it look like your potential enemy, that is within the realm of possibility.


I think it is, historically, by far the most popular means of starting a war. At least in *recorded* human history. Perhaps cave men were more civilised.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91

But china and Russia are allied to Iran, Iraq's worse enemy !?


Iraq and Iran are only enemies because the US made them so. They overthrew Iran's democratically elected leader and put a dictator in his place (remeber the '50s ?). Then they supported a dictator in Iraq, giving him weapons and encouraging war with Iran. If the US and UK had simply left the region in peace, the Middle East might look more like Europe than some sort of dystopian hell. In periods free from hegemonistic influences, the region has a history of happily accommodating peaceful co-existence of Jews, Muslims, and Christians - in periods of great development of knowledge and philosophy, no less! The moral of the story is that normal, everyday people, left to their own devices, generally build happy, free societies. Only when power becomes concentrated do commoners succumb to being brainwashed into hating each other.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I’m catching up here;


Actually, if you could provide me with the name of any aircraft manufactured in the last 50 years that was "mostly steel" I'd appreciate it.


MiG-25.


People, for some reason, seem to think flying a jumbo jet is this massive endever that takes years to learn and such. I've seen a cockpit, I've seen these contorts. It's not hard. Pull up, and turn sideways. C'mon. Half the crap is labeled anyway.


That sounds a lot like virgins talk about sex. Fact is, you just don’t know until you try it.


We're not talking about VW Bugs, we 're talking about profound diferances between a Cessna 172 and a Boeing 767. Tell me the diferances.


WEIGHT. How ‘bout another one - MOMENTUM. Need more? If so, please address elementary SCHOOL BOOKS on basic physics.


We're not talking about virtual Ferrari, or virtual guns, we're talking about Aircraft. This is a level-D simulator:


Have you been in one? I’ve personally been in a Boeing 777 simulator in Seattle. I know insider details about 777 testing that FAA does not.


And if simulators cannot possibly train pilots, then you may as well go on to explain why the USAF lets pilots fly there 350 million dollar F-22A with no prior flight time in the aircraft; only simulator time.


I know exactly why, do you?


Verifying the engine type would help though.


Help? It’s STABDARD procedure. What it done? Why not?

And this time PLEASE answer at least a SINGLE question, if you care to actually converse, and not just poke fingers at the sky, it would be appreciated, thank you.


Most of the crap lights up when it needs to be pressed any how. Planes are easy to fly, even the big boys.


What have you flown and how many hours have you logged to have an opinion?


Actually, in tests before they fly a plane for the first time, they stress the wing to 150% design load. Design load is typically 2.5g's and they need to take 1.5 times that. That's 3.75g's.

That would mean that you would have to pull back on the stick still you're almost 4 times your usual weight, or load the 767 down till it weighed 671887.5kg till the wing snaps.


Here’s where the investigation comes in.

How old was the plane?

What the condition of its structural integrity was as logged in maintenance book?

What were the metal fatigue values? (micro fracture X-rays.)

What was the fuel / cargo / passenger load at the time of the flight?

What were the variable of the approach given the data listed above?

Any ideas?

Any of this data in the Report?


I don't believe for a second that 19 arabs, acting alone, hijacked those planes and magically evaded the most sophisticated air-defence system in the world, but what you're talking about is just silly.


I agree entirely. All such nonsense as holograms, alien technology etc just clouds the topic at hand.

Not to mention that a number of those Arabs were found to be alive and well, residing in their countries of origin.

Unless other then flying planes into buildings Arabs perfected resurrection, they were simply not on those planes.


Show the math.

You figure the shear strength of the perimeter columns and the bolts connecting them, and you show me that the ~25 and ~36 of them in a grid, across about 4 or 5 floors that were knocked out, could support the dynamic load of an entire 767 coming in, not just aluminum but a titanium frame and heavy engines made of various materials, and landing gear, you have some mass to these things.


Enjoy!


Mitchell Bomber vs. Empire State Building

© Copyright 1999, Jim Loy

On Saturday, July 28, 1945 (a few days before the Atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima), a B-25 Mitchell bomber ran into the Empire State Building, then the tallest structure in the world. The bomber, piloted by Lt. Colonel William F. Smith, was flying under clouds, from Massachusetts to New Jersey. At about 10 A.M., the bomber hit the 79th floor, killing the three men aboard instantly. One of the two engines went through the building and out the other side, and through the roof of a 20-story building on the other side of 34th Street, starting a fire. The other engine, and part of a landing gear entered an elevator shaft and fell to the basement, onto an unoccupied elevator. Two women in another elevator fell 75 stories, and survived with serious injuries. Eleven people died in the fire on the 79th floor.

Why didn't the Empire State Building fall down? Well, an airplane (even a bomber) is fairly insignificant compared to the massive steel and concrete building. And, as explained by Levy & Salvadori, in Why Buildings Fall Down, the Empire State Building had built-in redundancy. No single beam held up the building. As it turned out, none of the vertical beams was severed, although two of them were struck by wings.

On May 20, 1946, another military airplane, lost in fog, hit the 58th floor of a building on Wall Street, killing the five men on board, and injuring no one else.


www.jimloy.com...

Please note, that even considering B-25s lower speed and smaller engines, they were both recovered and clearly identified.


First, the F-22A pilots were already experienced fighter pilots who had a wealth of experience flying real, high-performance aircraft.[/qute]

Right on the money justin, good deal.

[quore] Thousands of pilots with little to no training did exactly that in World War 2.
The Japanese used pilots who were little more then school children by the end of the war; not to fly into a huge stationary building using a very stable aircraft, but rather to fly into small, difficult to find (in the vast ocean), moving, armored, targets which shot back at them.


Wrong and wrong. Please read up on the ACTUALL reality of those situations, and statistics involved.


If the Japs with no prior flight time and poor training managed to fly into moving ships when flying Zeros being shot at, how can one possibly miss a target way bigger than a ship, when you HAVE atleast some training, and you're in a stable, easy to fly, Boeing 767?


This is getting just plain silly. Ignorance denied people! Let’s get on the ball here!


All in all, I’d say that you’re proving my point. These guys did nothing that a bunch of trained Japanese school children weren’t able to do, and actually with more training and better circumstances.


Have YOU flown a PLANE? Or is it just another virgin sex talk?


Well I’m not 15, and I am telling you the exact same thing.
By the time I was 18, I was working on the exact type of aircraft which we are discussing in this thread. Jimmey has a very solid knowledge of aircraft and aviation, by anyone’s standard.


No kidding, somebody who’s actually stating “There is no fundemental diferance between the flying dynamics over a Cessna 172, besides the fact that the Cessna 172 had torque and P-facter, that a 767 doesn't have.”

Can we PLEASE get real here?!

Both CARS and TRUCKS have tires, but the DON NOT drives the same! For crying out loud, is there a way to put a limit to childish nonsense here?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join