It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Xtrozero
Because that is what I saw. It was not a United Airlines plane. I don't know what it was but it was something consistent with a Boeing 767, but it was painted solid light grew, with no logos or any sort of writing that I noticed.
I’m still stuck on your feelings that it was a different plane.
Why would they use a plane like that? Probably because it was rigged to fly remotely and was probably a decommissioned military plane that they were planning on possibly crashing anyway, in tests. It could have been one removed from the books as a casualty of such testing, so it was not something noticed as being missing.
Those guys had never flown a Boeing, how the hell did they understand how to maneuvre such a massive machine?
You have to look at a lot of pictures taken right before, and when, the second plane hit. there are sections that are like puffs or rolls of smoke extending down from the main column of smoke from the north tower. It would be difficult to avoid and could not be avoided by going below them without getting down to the ground. You can see in good versions of the videos, smoke getting sucked into the slipstream of the plane and leaving strings, or tendrils, behind it where it stays visible for a second after it passes.
UAL 175 didn't fly "through" any smoke....
Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
And yet you haven't been able to find one verified pilot to support your claim that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank...
So our first maneuver east of the mountains was a rapid descent, simulating loss of cabin pressure....
I dialed the altitude from FL290 down to 11,000 feet, disconnected autothrust and brought the throttles to idle, dialed the speed up to 350 knots, and deployed the speedbrakes.
On the initial pitchover, the rate of descent increased to 9,600 feet per minute at 7½ degrees nose down, then slowed to 5,300 feet per minute as the airspeed stabilized at 353 knots.
The time from start of the descent to level-off at 11,000 feet was just 3 minutes. Very impressive, particularly since we flew the maneuver by interfacing with automation, rather than manually.
We entered an arbitrary working area into the Honeywell Pegasus FMC and set up for some flight maneuvers northwest of Moses Lake. The first was a check of roll rate in bank-to-bank rolls from 30 degrees to 30 degrees at ½ wheel deflection.
Flying the clean airplane at 350 knots, bank-to-bank took 4 seconds, for a roll rate of 15 degrees per second. Here is where a sharp control input initiated an aeroelastic response from the airframe.
A later check of this same maneuver with flaps 30 at Vref=136 gave a bank-to-bank time of 6 seconds, or a roll rate of 10 degrees per second. This excellent response at slow speed in the landing configuration is another indication of the exceptional handling qualities of this airplane.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
.but, since most at "PfT" (it seems) only derive their knowledge from desktop Flight Simulator programs, they wouldn't be able to feel this, and know about it.
Originally posted by TiffanyInLAPlease let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so..."
We were climbing through eleven hundred feet toward an assigned altitude of fifteen hundred feet, and then we saw it. Paul Smith, my pilot, saw it before I did -- an airliner, traveling from south to north, traveling low and fast.
"Now what's this guy doing?" I asked Paul.
"You see this yahoo?" he shot back.
Paul was thinking the same thing I was: the jetliner was on an approach to Newark's shortest and most seldom used runway, and was, for some reason, slightly off course. Airplanes would come up from the south and then turn west near the Statue of Liberty onto final approach. Paul assumed that this airplane would do just that, and he was perturbed that Newark's air traffic controller hadn't advised us that there was an airplane in our vicinity.
I could see the rear profile with engines on both wings as it approached the statue. A Boeing 737, I thought. And then it dipped. Not a nice, gradual descent, but a brief dip and then a sharp turn to the right. Not a graceful, gradual airliner turn like you see in commercials; this was a sharp, abrupt turn that put the plane into a forty-five-degree bank, and it flew into the shade being created by the smoke plume from the north tower.
Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so..."
So far, you have failed for more than FIFTY-TWO pages.
Originally posted by SpacePunk
reply to post by Doctor G
I'd hate to be a passenger on a plane they fly when they are trying to land. From the sounds of things I doubt they could 'hit' a runway.