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.

 

F-16s Tracking Stolen Cessna

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Highground
 


At 55% power, and 12,000 feet a Cessna 172 can fly 790 miles.

From the Cessna website, the range of a Cessna 172 Skycatcher is 610nm or 1130km. From Beaverton Ontario (they didn't say where the flight started at, so I picked that one at random) to Ellsinore Missouri, "as the crow flies" it's 796 miles or 1281km. Now when he landed they said that he had "about 30 minutes of fuel" remaining in the plane.

The 796 miles would be if he flew straight there. From the sound of things he kind of wandered around for awhile before he landed.

I caught your edit after I replied. You were editing as I was getting numbers.


[edit on 4/7/2009 by Zaphod58]

And wouldn't the high altitude he reached have burned more fuel, since (I'm no expert here, correct me if I'm wrong) that's a bit higher up than the plane is intended to go?




posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Highground
 


He may have actually burned less once he was up there, but he would have burned more to get up there. Add to that the fact that he wandered from 14,000 feet, to as low as 300 feet, and back up again. The low level portion of the flight would have burned more fuel because of the denser air, as well as the climb back up to higher altitude.

It depends on which model he was flying. They have several different models, and some of them have newer engines which work rather well at higher altitudes.

[edit on 4/7/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by F15-Pilot
 


Finally!!!

An intelligent response from an actual fighter pilot!!!

I thought about explaining it as a possible 'slow-pass' by the 16's...or, as you described, the descending 'slow-pass'....I was aware of the computer stablility augmentation systems on the F-16, but not well-versed enough to bring it up.

here's an idea that came to me, however....this airplane would not have attracted any attention IF it had not crossed a National border without a Flight Plan on file.

There is no reason that a Cessna 172 cannot fly VFR without a Flight Plan, unless it violates an ADIZ or a Restricted Area, or a Prohibited Area, or any other Airspace currently 'restricted' by a TFR NOTAM.

Still.....a Cessna, heading at about 120K to the Midwest of the US....interception is certainly warranted, but once intercepted it can easily be monitored....a 'shoot down' is, really....'cowboy diplomacy' to the extreme!!!

See how well this event turned out??? Maybe the guy WANTED to be seen as 'provacative'? Just to instigate an 'event'?? 'Martyrdom'??



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
the minimum speed of the f-16 has bugged me but now i see it can go pretty slow. here is a video of one that happens to be going minimum speed ha!



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Hi, penetrating/escaping Cessna fans.

Here are some numbers for your discussions:

1 nm = 1.151 mile (statute 5280').

1 nm = 1.852 kilometer.

1 nm = 1.957607e-013 light year.
for the day we escort our "NORAD pesky visitors".

15 degrees celsuis = 59 degrees fahrenheit,

29.92 inches of mercury = 1013.207 m illibars.
. . .for standard calculations. . .

And now, back to our news watching. . . B-)

Blue skies.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Then be done responding to me.

Just remember that I told you this guy would be labeled a terrorist before anyone knew he was anything other than a Canadian.


I don't believe he has been labeled a terrorist yet but you don't seem to let little things like facts get in the way of your nearly incomprehensible posts.

I think we know where you stand. Thanks for gracing us with your presence.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
He was apprehended in Missouri, huh?

I wonder if he was a Ron Paul supporter or if he had any CFL literature on board!!


Thank you! I'll be here all week. Try the shrimp cocktails.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Heh, the idiot that stole that plane is in plenty of ------- well let's just say deep#...

heh He thought he was unhappy before...



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
wow

great thread

the canadian plane wasnt the only thing hijacked

thanks for that guys


this event is really interesting though

it really seems like theres several things that are taking place that all seem to be orchestrated lately


in a era with everyone so tense and terrorism being shoved down your throat everywhere you turn it really is shocking though that the plane was allowed to continue as far as it did


there was only one person in it, it was a small plane, the military couldve easily justified blowing him out of the sky

the fact they didnt makes it more interesting

what would we be talking about now if that was some sort of attack and they didnt shoot him down?


what if him landing was to release a biological weapon

they found him in a public grocery store, one of the places youd expect a crowd of people, a great place to use a bio weapon


seems to me, with everything going on, if the us wants us to believe we're "getting safer" then they wouldve blown him outta the air

then even if they found nothing in the wreckage, they couldve just said they found some anthrax and called it a day


but by not shooting it down, makes you wonder what will happen when it happens again and theres actually an attack, are the fighters just going to follow them and watch the attack happen in front of their eyes?


but back to being off topic

when i heard it was from canada, i was totally hoping it would be one of the guys from the trailer park boys or something, its exactly something i could see them doing in some money making scheme



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Hows about you guys bickering over who said what first take it to U2U and stop flexing your egos in the public space?

I came here to read about the event, not search through pages of 'I'm right, you're wrong' to have to find it.

Now kiss and make up and let's discuss the event.



So far, my interpetation:

Canadian Turk wants to commit suicide.
Hasn't got the guts to do it.
Steals a plane from his flight school and enters US airspace, hoping they will shoot him down and end his life.
Fuel runs low and still he is allowed to fly on.
He lands and in still not having the guts to end his own life, flees in the fear of a life in prison.
He fails at fleeing... because he is Canadian.
(Joking).

Sounds plausible enough to me. The only X factor is the logged flight time vs flying ability.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by aboxoftrix
"the minimum speed of the f-16 has bugged me but now i see it can go pretty slow. here is a video of one that happens to be going minimum speed ha!"

Complements to the OP for that video. S&F for that nice find. The F-15 and F-16s are used because of their high maneuverability due to the fact that they are smaller and much lighter than any other jets flown; which makes it possible for these types of maneuvers as demonstrated in the video. The airframe is over 80% aluminum, titaniam and other composites. And they were purposely designed to be slightly aerodynamically unstable in flight. The reason being, so that this "instability" would allow the plane to react much quicker in any given situation - i.e. as in an air battle. The larger jets need to correct themselves constantly which reduces their maneuverability. You are literally "flying by the seat of your pants" when flying these smaller jets. If you look at the video again closely you will probably notice the constant correction by the flight control system to keep the wings as level as possible. The pilot isn't flying the plane at this point - at least until he decides to go vertical. He's probably eating his lunch or something.

What I found on the humorous side to the original article was that the NORAD spokesman quoted the cost per hour for each jet. What's $50,000 per hour to protect our country when the government has already flushed trillions down the toilet with all these bank bailouts. If they are worried about the money then they should stop throwing money away on a lost cause and use it for defending our borders and airspace. They might as well throw gasoline on a fire than to keep throwing taxpayer dollars on this lost effort. But then again, that's another topic altogether.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Sorry for not quoting correctly. I'm still relatively new at this. Guess I better do some more reading on how to do things the way they're supposed to be done.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by fooffstarr
 


the big problem with your ` suicide theory ` is that if he REALLY wanted to get shot down - there are tons of " tactics " to ensure he would like :

radioing a chemical / biological weapons release threat

aiming at a ` critical ` target

as for his hours / flying skills - he didnt do anything that required any advanced skill



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by fooffstarr
 


the big problem with your ` suicide theory ` is that if he REALLY wanted to get shot down - there are tons of " tactics " to ensure he would like :

radioing a chemical / biological weapons release threat

aiming at a ` critical ` target

as for his hours / flying skills - he didnt do anything that required any advanced skill


Good point.

It wasn't exactly that well thought through. Just first observations.


Oh... I consider landing a plane on a highway and parking it under a bridge fairly advanced... but I've never flown a plane so I don't know how hard that is.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   
The first thing that came to mind when i saw this story was...

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas when you spend your entire time for the shady government agent guy, stealing F16's or avoiding F16's in Cessnas.

Ahh the gold ol' days.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
...As it stands, it is a pathetic display of law enforcement in America...


(Just something I've picked up along the way.)
Is there anything keeping you from a law enforcement position?
You know, so you can do things the way you think they should be done, Dirty Harry style.

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but that s*** only happens in the movies. There are rules that are followed.

Until you've been in those shoes, keep quiet.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Fight Or Flight

While speculation and debate are hallmarks of a good ATS thread, we seem to be flying a bit off course with respect to the topic and into restricted airspace with respect to civility.


As always, theories that are reasonably related to the topic are quite welcome, but especially long tangents might be better suited for a new thread in the appropriate forum.

Let's please try not to get too riled up with one another and focus on the issue at hand, which is this rather spectacular event.

Thanks.





[edit on 4/7/2009 by Majic]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Not sure if there is any merit to this but I cant find any reoprts in the MSM in the UK bar the BBC and the link to the story on their site is coming up with a 404 - page removed error?

Press blackout anyone?



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Jay, I normally enjoy reading your well thought out responses, but...

Might you demonstrate an example of "good" law enforcement? Anywhere? In fact, can you tell me what constitutes a good or bad enforcement of the law? It's not an easy objective. If there were a "perfect system" we'd be using it, as well as everybody else. Problem is, there isn't, and I'm almost positive there never will be.

"You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you will NEVER please all of the people all of the time."

Some people will view this as a joy ride. Some people will view it as a possible act of terrorism. Some people would like to see him walk. Some people would like to see him put to death. Which people are right? Which people are wrong? Why?

The point is, the law has already been written. He will be charged with the laws he has broken. He will go to court and face a judge/jury. He will (obviously) be found guilty and face the punishment granted by law.

In other words, what does America's display of law enforcement have to do with anything?


- Strype



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
tracking a cessna with f-16s - WTF ??????????????

thats TOTAL overkill

a bloody chinook helicopter has the speed and range to overhaul a freaking cessna

and it can carry a serction of infantry / some police officers to chase the guy if he does put down in a feild or on a road


COME ON! Its not over kill, its style! It just sounds cooler to say you scrambled the F-16's!
No one ever says, 'We scrambled the Chinooks! and are in pursuit.' Except for nerdy WOW playing armchair general's like the people who frequent this board.




top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join