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 Alfie1
Correct me if I am wrong but we seem to be at a point where an acceptable dive velocity for a Boeing 767 is 483 mph at any altitude below 18,000 ft.
You have pointed out that a safety factor of 150 % is built in so wouldn't that indicate a safe dive speed up to 724 mph ?
We are getting in to the sound barrier region here but no-one has suggested that. Just perhaps 580 mph.
Your repeated question about a pilot flying 150 over VMO is meaningless because no pilot wanting to keep his job is likely to admit to that. Cutting out all the cr*p, isn't it the case that UA 175 was pushing it as regards speed but, what the hell, it was a one way trip.
Originally posted by Alfie1
In the absence of evidence that UA 175 was modified or substituted it seems to me that, as a basic Boeing 767, it did what it did.
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
You have pointed out that a safety factor of 150 % is built in so wouldn't that indicate a safe dive speed up to 724 mph ?
Originally posted by 4nsicphd
You have misread something. There is no mandated safety factor for design speed limits. Not 1%. The 150% is for load factors, i.e., the ultimate load limit is 50% more than the design load limit. See 14 C.F.R., Part 25 for Transport Category certification requirements. I,m not sure it's on the web, but a good public library will have it.
Precedent -
EA990
China Air 747SP
TWA 727
737
Modified DC-8
Originally posted by weedwhacker
so I have NOT repeated my analyses[sic] with the same frequency as these identical posts have been ....ermmm...."posted".
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by jmdewey60
You can crush a .38 calibre bullet with a hammer.
Fire that same bullet from a gun???? Then IT becomes the boss.....
Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by jmdewey60
you forgotten the central wing spar, engine hardpoints, luggage containers full of luggage (they can withstand some explosions) etc and the fact that upto a 315,000 lb (maximum take off weight) aircraft flying at 530 mph+, there is enough energy here to destroy lots of things, let alone a building.
"enough" energy doesn't really say much, does it? What it says is that, in your unquantified opinion, a 767 at cruise has the energy to knock down a 450 million kilogram structure.
Well, now, how much kinetic energy really is in a 315,000 pound airplane at 530mph?
We can use your weight, although after takeoff and some flight, and given that for the planned flight a full fuel load wouldn't be needed, the weight would be less than MTOW. 315,000 pounds is 142,882 kilograms. 530 mph is 853 kilometers/hour or 237 meters/second, so using the formula for kinetic energy, KE =1/2mv^2 where KE is kinetic energy, m is mass and v is velocity, you end up with close to 4 megajoules. That is 4 million joules. A standard .6 pound stick of dynamite, with an energy density of 7.5MJ/kg, contains 2.1 MJ of energy. So a Boeing 767-222 at MTOW at 530 mph has the same energy as two whole sticks of dynamite.
Perhaps you would rather compare it with a bomb, such as we see dropped on stuff in Iraq or A'stan. The most common bomb is the Mark 82 500 pounder. It has 79 kilograms of high explosive, either H-6, Minotol, or Tritonol, all of which carry an energy density of 4.7 MJ/kg, so a single 500 pound dumb bomb is 92 times more energetic than a a Boeing 767-222 at MTOW at 530 mph.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
There were lots of different forces acting as the planes impacted the walls you just dont understand thats all!
"analyses"[sic]....[snipped].... "analyses"[sic]....[snipped]...."analyses"[sic]....
...during the amount of time that it is hidden behind the towers, it levels out, changes direction, and lines up to hit the tower not too far from center...
Improbable for a pilot well experienced flying that particular plane, but in my opinion, impossible for anyone else, including hijackers who could barely fly a cessna.
The evidence presented may support the conclusion that flight 175 was improbable, but it certainly doesn't prove that it was impossible.