The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

 

Money spent investigating Clinton and Lewinsky.... Take a look
www.cnn.com...

Can anyone show me how much they spent on 9-11? Its hard to find a reputable source, but from what I have seen its far less. Does this make sense to you?

It not about left and right, it is about what was done wrong to Americans

Your correct, if you choose to leave out the all important context. I know you haven't left it out on purpose, so my beef isn't with you - not at all. It's with people who peddle that kind of misinformation.

The 9-11 commission was not charged with investigating anything. They drew conclusions from the collected works of other agencies.

So, when someone like Alex Jones says less money was spent putting together the 9-11 report, he's right. What he's not telling you is the above and the amount of money already spent by countless investigations, studies and research efforts that the 9-11 report contains.

This intellectual dishonesty is rampant through the truth movement.

If you don't agree with my statement that the leaders of the truth movement aren't interested in truth or 9-11, that's totally your prerogative. Look into it, if you wish and I think what you'll find about truth leaders is pretty eye opening. Of course, that's my opinion.

This made little sense to me.

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 27 years of flying I never heard of "downwash sheet" or "compressibility effects of the tip vortices" preventing from going below 1/2 distance of the wing at high speeds.

1/2 distance of the wing is what is called ground effect and this creates greater pressure on the bottom of the wing that basically enhances the ability to fly using Bernoulli's Principle.



[edit on 15-1-2008 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar



I will give you that. There are a certain number of leaders that are politically driven, and there is no doubt about that. Alex jones is someone that I do not choose to listen to, nor do I believe that I have sited him. Those are the ones that will hurt the Real TRUTH movement. There are those with political agendas and that is something they do not hide. however, I do believe that there are a number of hardworking and honest Americans that believe we have been had. Something is not right, and it is up to the people to do their best to try and get at the truth.

It is unfortunate that those with the access and the money to get their points out are the ones that have a hidden, or not so hidden, agenda.

reply to post by Boone 870


Let me correct that right now. It has nothing to do with fitting with what I choose to ponder in abstract. It has everything to do with concrete physcial reality, as my experiences have dictated it in reality. I have had a large number of life experineces, plus, continuing education in my long life time.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Is it now? You cannot prove the "official" reports are accurate and true by all science and physical reality. Yet, you have the audacity to point fingers elsewhere. Better save that thumb for yourself. That would be honest.

reply to post by OrionStars


Can't let you off the hook on this one. No, that's not what happened. You were so quick to want to argue, rather than express your opinion, that you jumped to conclusions (that I am fibbing, or bluffing). Then you came back and tried to save yourself and appear more.....reasonable.

You 'ought to know by now that if I don't personally know what I am talking about, I say so.

If you want me to break out my helicopter kung-fu, I am all for it.

My only point is this: based on personal experience flying (with no official training in a far more dynamically complex machine), I see the idea of a poorly trained individual flying a large aircraft - without any regard for any semblance of safety, dexterity or overall concern for anything other than crashing into something - entirely possible.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

 

Is it now? You cannot prove the "official" reports are accurate and true by all science and physical reality. Yet, you have the audacity to point fingers elsewhere. Better save that thumb for yourself. That would be honest.

Seriously, are you talking to me, or yourself?

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Yeah but then there is that threat of them, and their inability, crashing the plane instead of hitting a target. in order to do what they did they would have to be highly skilled. There is no question about it. I just dont think its as easy as we are lead to believe.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
This made little sence to me.

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 27 years of flying I never heard of "downwash sheet" or "compressibility effects of the tip vortices" preventing from going below
1/2 distance of the wing at high speeds.

1/2 distance of the wing is what is called ground effect and this creates greater pressure on the bottom of the wing that basically enhances the ability to fly using Bernoulli's Principle.

reply to post by Xtrozero


It is part of aerodynamics lingo. Why haven't you heard of it "In 27 years of flying experience......" For example:

www.allstar.fiu.edu...

"How Airplanes Fly: A Physical Description of Lift
Level 3

Fig 4 True airflow over a wing with lift, showing upwash and downwash.

The lift of a wing is equal to the change in momentum of the air it is diverting down. Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. The lift of a wing is proportional to the amount of air diverted down times the downward velocity of that air. Its that simple. (Here we have used an alternate form of Newton’s second law that relates the acceleration of an object to its mass and to the force on it; F=ma) For more lift the wing can either divert more air (mass) or increase its downward velocity. This downward velocity behind the wing is called "downwash". Figure 5 shows how the downwash appears to the pilot (or in a wind tunnel). The figure also shows how the downwash appears to an observer on the ground watching the wing go by. To the pilot the air is coming off the wing at roughly the angle of attack. To the observer on the ground, if he or she could see the air, it would be coming off the wing almost vertically. The greater the angle of attack, the greater the vertical velocity. Likewise, for the same angle of attack, the greater the speed of the wing the greater the vertical velocity. Both the increase in the speed and the increase of the angle of attack increase the length of the vertical arrow. It is this vertical velocity that gives the wing lift.

Wing vortices
One might ask what the downwash from a wing looks like. The downwash comes off the wing as a sheet and is related to the details on the load distribution on the wing."

Even I knew that without being a student of aerodynamics. I just say it differently and mean the same thing is all. Exactly where have you been doing ".....27 years of flying"?

At the Pentagon, they were allegedly doing all that "clean expert flying" at 20 ft from ground level at 400 mph, without tearing up any of the campus nor blowing over or damaging any buildings nor driving vehicles off the highway. You know - thrust foot pounds of force from the engines at that alleged height and that speed.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


What is possible is anyone can crash a plane whether or not they know what they are doing. But can they hit exactly what they aim at and know how to work the controls to get that accomplished?

I believe the article said it very well. The answer, in physical reality, is no. Not without the flight experience to do it.

What is it some people do not understand concerning what is possible, in physical reality, to maneuver with commercial jetliners and what is not. I have not seen you once take that into consideration. Why not?

reply to post by OrionStars


well apparently any old person can jump into a cockpit and fly the things. The Aeronotical Engineer must be wrong, and those trying to debunk him are obviously right.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

 

When I was a small child, I had the opportunity to be transported in a military cargo plane. The pilot offered to let me "fly the plane". What that meant was he kept his hands on the wheel along with mine, and for a second he would remove his if we were level. But I would hardly run around giving the impression I flew a military cargo plane all by myself. That would be dishonest.

I agree, that's not what happened and your mis characterization of what I said is rejected.

If the PIC had been "on the controls" at the same time I was manipulating them (or mine while he) would make controlling the aircraft that much harder and that much more unsafe. Did we swap control? Yes, several times. I found coordinating the right amount of pitch (cyclic) and combining it with the right amount of power (collective) to be very hard while trying to land. That would be one of many examples of when the PIC took the controls. The idea that I was sitting on anyone's lap and "touching" the controls is crazy.

I used the word hover because that's exactly what I did, exactly as the inference. That is, by myself. If I had merely "held" the controls for a split second, I would have said so. No, what I meant is I hovered a Blackhawk. As in sat in the right seat, buckled up, pulled in power, and adjusted the cyclic like I was stirring butter and hovered.

I am not in the truth movement. I mean exactly what I say and when I make a mistake, admit it.

Why must you continuously mis characterize what I say, then make me go through the tedious task of spelling out what is already obvious? There have been pages and pages of this kind of thing from you in the past.

You don't like me, great. You don't like my opinion, great. You think my facts on 9-11 are wrong, thats wonderful.

I don't appreciate your thinly veiled charge that I am a lier. You don't need to spend the CPU cycles trying to catch me in a lie. I don't. There is no reason to. I plainly state things as opinion when they are. I claim knowledge only when I do, in fact, have first hand knowledge. When relying on the works of others, I link to it an clearly state that the idea is not mine, even if I am in agreement with it.

When I say I hovered a Blackhawk, then that's exactly what I meant. That particular flight lasted roughly two hours and I flew the aircraft for the majority of that time. Just before heading back, we landed in a semi-remote LZ and switched seats for the trip back. So, lets get more specific and say 1:55 minutes of manipulating the controls.

Your post is insulting and inflammatory.



[edit on 15-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by Jeff Riff


I guess is some people had their way. After all, I got to hold the wheel of a real flying cargo plane for 3 minutes or less. That was a real plane (probably non-existant by now). That must mean at 8 years of age I should have been able to fly any cargo plane available? Yes?

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Jeff Riff

 

I guess is some people had their way.

Should read "I guess if some people had their way."

reply to post by Jeff Riff


Okay, that's fair (not that I am implying my sense of fairness should mean anything to you).

I totally see the amount of luck that would have to be involved - I do. I am totally speculating here but, what if FLT 93 simply crashed because he lost control? What if the passengers never got into the cockpit? Personally, I think the plane was shot down - again no proof what-so-ever, just my opinion. Someone else mentioned that there is no evidence the passengers ever got into the cockpit. I don't know if that's true but, I am going to try and find out.

If my speculation would prove to be true - if, and it never will be - that would mean 25% of the hijacked planes did, in fact, loose control and simply crash.

Interesting thought. Pure, unadulterated making things up, speculation.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

 

Is it now? You cannot prove the "official" reports are accurate and true by all science and physical reality. Yet, you have the audacity to point fingers elsewhere. Better save that thumb for yourself. That would be honest.

Seriously, are you talking to me, or yourself?

You do not think about what you post before you post, do you? It is not me voraciously, vainly, redundantly attempting to prove the "official" reports true and accurate and miserably failing. Therefore, I must have been "talking" to you when I addressed you in writing.

reply to post by Jeff Riff


On this issue, I don't recall claiming anything other than my opinion. I haven't said any of the information presented by anyone is the 'right' information.

My opinion is nothing more than my opinion. As always, I am fallible and might be completely wrong. I think if you search my posts you'll see my points of contention center around statements of absolutes, when there is no way of knowing, or when something is presented as fact, when it's not.

I have offered my personal experience and related how that affects my opinion. I didn't say this is proof of anything other than my experience and opinion(s).

In my opinion, it's not at all "impossible" for hijackers with minimal training to crash airplanes into buildings. That's all.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Sorry for being sarcastic, you are right to have your opinion and I shouldnt attack that. To me and my opinion the whole scenario of these inexperinced guys taking control of planes and flying them into buildings seems rather impossible.

I just dont see how it is possible. Then you have a group of pilots with years and years of flying experience that start the website pilotsfor911truth.com They too see this as somewhat of a daunting task for the inexperienced to undertake. I hardly think they have an agenda (I know that you are not stating that there is one). I think that we can take the word of pilots......

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


If it was, that would mean anti-gravity and electromagnetic energy was used, to completely rip apart every molecule, of every piece of physical matter, and leave no evidence whatsoever in mid-air. Basically, what it looked like, including some natural sink hole located at some ex-strip mine unnaturally refilled area. That, or a cruise missile with folding wings impacting the ground and a Pentagon wall.

Which physical reality do you like best of those two high probablities above? Because it is definitely physical reality probability in both cases. Einstein's Unified Field Theory put to physical reality use on 9/11/2001.

reply to post by Jeff Riff


The author of the story says "the pilot virtually loses all external visual cues", that is very silly. He's not talking about reference points on the ground that could be used for navigation. He is talking about being able to maintain straight and level flight. You can see the horizon from 35,000 feet and you would not have to use instruments to know whether you were upside down or right side up.