Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757

reply to post by backinblack


backinblack,

Serveral hours actually, the mission profile for the B-52 used to call for flying under the expected radar.

The mission practice followed what we called oil burner routes through remote areas. If you got below about 150 feet you sensed a definate back pressure pushing you back to a higher altitude. The higher the speed the more the ground effect was apparent.

Originally posted by whatwasthat
reply to post by backinblack

 

backinblack,
Serveral hours actually, the mission profile for the B-52 used to call for flying under the expected radar.
The mission practice followed what we called oil burner routes through remote areas. If you got below about 150 feet you sensed a definate back pressure pushing you back to a higher altitude. The higher the speed the more the ground effect was apparent.

At 500knts ???

But then if you felt ground effect at 150 feet, what would you expect at 50' or 20' ?
Do you think you could have held the plane in control ?

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by whatwasthat
reply to post by backinblack

 

backinblack,
Serveral hours actually, the mission profile for the B-52 used to call for flying under the expected radar.
The mission practice followed what we called oil burner routes through remote areas. If you got below about 150 feet you sensed a definate back pressure pushing you back to a higher altitude. The higher the speed the more the ground effect was apparent.

At 500knts ???

But then if you felt ground effect at 150 feet, what would you expect at 50' or 20' ?
Do you think you could have held the plane in control ?

The ground effect pressure would be quite noticeable. The pressure can be trimed off with a control button that
can produce a zero control pressure for the pilot in at any speed. Someone intent on hitting the building could adjust the trim tab down.


When we practised high speed low level flying we would not trim off the pressure below 500 feet for a measure of safety.

reply to post by whatwasthat

When we practised high speed low level flying we would not trim off the pressure below 500 feet for a measure of safety.

This pilot had NO practice..
It was a once only show..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by whatwasthat

 

When we practised high speed low level flying we would not trim off the pressure below 500 feet for a measure of safety.

This pilot had NO practice..
It was a once only show..

How someone could decide to fly an airplne into a building escapes me completely. Once having decided to do
such a dastardly deed the fact is there is not a lot of skill required. The flight envelope as reflected in the NTSB
report of the recovered recorder is completely within the performace capability of the aircraft.

reply to post by whatwasthat


Yep sure
And all the physical evidence and damage also fits the OS...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by whatwasthat

 

Yep sure

And all the physical evidence and damage also fits the OS...

Oh, that is another issue to be considered separately from flight characteristics.

I see no reason not to trust the OS on this event. I was not there and the photos show me nothing to cause doubt.

I have been very close to aircraft that have made contact with the ground at similar speed and attitude. I can tell you that the debris field frequently bears little resemblance to what your intuition tells you to expect. Based on having seen more than a couple actual crashes and making close inspection of the aftermath I am not in the least concerned that some photos and even some recollections appear incongruous.

I know you want to find a person to blame, I suggest you look no further than the hijacker who directed the aircraft to the crash site.

reply to post by whatwasthat

I know you want to find a person to blame, I suggest you look no further than the hijacker who directed the aircraft to the crash site.

And I humbly disagree..

Originally posted by whatwasthat
The ground effect pressure would be quite noticeable. The pressure can be trimed off with a control button that
can produce a zero control pressure for the pilot in at any speed. Someone intent on hitting the building could adjust the trim tab down.
When we practised high speed low level flying we would not trim off the pressure below 500 feet for a measure of safety.

Ahem.....which way was the trim adjusted again? Where is that button located, specifically? At what speed did you fly on the oil burner routes?

When did you fly these routes?

ETA: What was your position on the B-52 crew?

Originally posted by backinblack


And I humbly disagree..

......without proof.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by backinblack


And I humbly disagree..

......without proof.

Not only no proof, but no credible evidence either....

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by whatwasthat
The ground effect pressure would be quite noticeable. The pressure can be trimed off with a control button that
can produce a zero control pressure for the pilot in at any speed. Someone intent on hitting the building could adjust the trim tab down.
When we practised high speed low level flying we would not trim off the pressure below 500 feet for a measure of safety.

Ahem.....which way was the trim adjusted again? Where is that button located, specifically? At what speed did you fly on the oil burner routes?

When did you fly these routes?

ETA: What was your position on the B-52 crew?

edit on 13-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Reheat


Reheat, I am relatively confident, based on what I've read, that whatwasthat seems to know what he's talking about RE: large jets.

In particular the comment about the trim....(and I have little doubt he will have the correct answer to your "challenge", there...I see what you are asking, and why....).

Also, the low-level training missions that were hand-flown, makes absolute complete sense, as described, regarding the stab trim, and its preferred position....to "default" to a climb, as a safety measure.

Side note.....when the 757/767 are in full autopilot autoland mode....they do the same thing....the A/P trim does its thing, the elevator servos maintain a bit of constant force....this is all to be "set-up" preparatory to the flare...it also is conducive to the pitch-up required in the event of a missed approach. We have to be aware of this, because although an auto-coupled missed approach is preferred, there are occasions when you will disconnect the A/P (or it disconnects itself) after it has initiated the self-trim ---- which normally occurs as descending through about 300 feet RA. Knowing the way it trims, you are ready for it when transiting to manual.....needs a bit of forward pressure to keep the nose form pitching up excessively.

reply to post by whatwasthat


Hello Reheat,

The trim button is on the control wheel, it is a four way switch. In this case the terrorist would likely applied some foward pressure to get a neutral feel at a higher speed. The pilot adjusts it with thumb pressure whlile
most of his hand pressure remains on the flight control wheel.


I was flying, a USAF rating of pilot equal time in both seats. What is your knowledge of aviation?

Originally posted by whatwasthat

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by whatwasthat
The ground effect pressure would be quite noticeable. The pressure can be trimed off with a control button that
can produce a zero control pressure for the pilot in at any speed. Someone intent on hitting the building could adjust the trim tab down.
When we practised high speed low level flying we would not trim off the pressure below 500 feet for a measure of safety.

Ahem.....which way was the trim adjusted again? Where is that button located, specifically? At what speed did you fly on the oil burner routes?

When did you fly these routes?


Reheat,

It was before 1970, speed was varied between 270 and 425, issues such a time of year for bird strikes and considerations of wear and tear at higher speed. We did push it up occasionally because it was deemed necessary for the crew to experience just how bouncy it was at high speed. Think about driving your pickup truck over open range at about forty an you can get the feeling for high speed low level.

Now please don't try to send me a bill for running your cows skinny on the open range.

ETA: What was your position on the B-52 crew?

edit on 13-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by whatwasthat
reply to post by whatwasthat

 

Hello Reheat,

The trim button is on the control wheel, it is a four way switch. In this case the terrorist would likely applied some foward pressure to get a neutral feel at a higher speed. The pilot adjusts it with thumb pressure whlile
most of his hand pressure remains on the flight control wheel.


I was flying, a USAF rating of pilot equal time in both seats. What is your knowledge of aviation?

Hi,

Ok, fair enough, so far. You got my attention for a couple of reasons. One, the oil burner routes were renamed in the 1970's. They then became "olive branch" routes undoubtedly for PR reasons. Later, the OB routes became IRXXXX and VRXXX.

The second reasons is that you've stated some misleading information regarding Ground Effect. Ground Effect DOES NOT increase with aircraft speed. It is most pronounced during landing speeds and landing configuration. What ever you're describing in a B-52 at low level was not ground effect.

It does not create a cushion of air pushing the aircraft upward. It results in an increase in the coefficient of lift and reduces induced drag. This causes a "floating effect" during landing in which the landing distance can dramatically increase particularly if the landing speed is too high. It does not affect high speed low level flight to any great degree at all.

I am a retired USAF and Airline pilot with an Airline Transport Rating. While in the USAF I flew fighters, fighter/bombers and was an instructor in all aircraft flown except my first assignment. In addition, I have time in training other pilots both at the basic and advanced level. I have hundreds of hours at high speed (to include short periods above Mach 1) at low level. Low level being 500'AGL and below......

You comments to deny and/or reduce ignorance are welcome and appreciated, but at the same time we should not post incorrect or misleading information to increase ignorance either. Welcome to the loony bin of ATS.

ETA: Also, Ground Effect is more pronounced in light General Aviation type aircraft than in heavy transport rated aircraft. Of course, large heavy aircraft produce greater wing tip vortices (the source/cause of Ground Effect), but this fact does not result in greater effect on those aircraft themselves....

reply to post by Reheat


Addendum....

In a positive statically balanced aircraft (the B-52 is) with an increase in speed the nose will rise and the aircraft will seem to be pushed upward AT ALL ALTITUDES not just low level. An increase in power will have the same effect. This is not Ground Effect, it is simply the result of the aerodynamic design of the aircraft. Conversely, a decrease in speed or a reduction in power will have the opposite effect.

This is an important issue because several years ago Rob Balsamo of the infamous pfffft cult started the myth that AA 77 could not have flown at low level and struck the Pentagon because Ground Effect would have prevented it. This is total unadulterated POPPYCOCK and simply illustrates either a lack of knowledge or an intent to deceive. I suspect a little of both are involved......

reply to post by Reheat


Hello Reheat,

First of all, thank you for your service to our country.

Yeah, your correct about the terms, it has been a while since I read the books and I have slept some since I was in the first class at Laredo to fly the T-38. My response was to the postings speculating about configuration of flight and weather it would be even possible for a maniac to fly into the building the way it did.

I guess I am old and crotchety when I say I resent changing the name from Oil Burnner, It really is descriptive of the increased fuel consumtion rate for low level jets.


I guess you are twenty years younger than me and recently retired. Including trainers, I was checked out in nine different airplanes during the seven years I was active duty. If you look at my ATS information you will find a link
to a video of one of my assignments. The man speaking is someone I know well from a later combat assignment.

reply to post by Reheat

....several years ago Rob Balsamo of the infamous pfffft cult started the myth ....

Yes....one of MANY myths spewed from the fertile imagination (and aviation-fact-challenged) of "Balsamo's Brain" ®.

Don't forget the laboriously calculated (and completely, hysterically wrong) "11/2 G pull-out" for AAL 77....and the "it should have rotated around its vertical axis at impact" nonsense, and the "smoking gun" that he shot himself in the foot with, about the Flight Deck Door fiasco....oh, trly a gift that keeps on giving and amusing.

Related (and quite possibly "The Rob" (Pat. Pend.) himself), is a YouTuber named "skyarcher", and a *cough*cough* video "proof" of "impossible speed" above Vmo....using, (get this!).....Microsoft Flight Sim!!

LOL!

Brings a tear to m'eye, just thinkin' about it.......

reply to post by whatwasthat


Thank-you for your short service too. Again, welcome to the Forum here. Your comments and opinions are welcome by the sane. The others.........well, you'll have to judge for yourself....