• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dispelling Myths: The "Impossible Maneuver"

Thoreau72 said:
Something about your answers make it seem like you a simulator pilot/expert who has never flown a real airplane for a living. But I'm going to view this simulation again. Simulations created from contrived information is really wasting time, but I'll play along.

How much instruction have you given to 300 hour pilots? Either in a sim or in a real airplane? I suspect that info won't be forthcoming.

In something over 11,000 hours, I have something over 3000 hours of giving dual. I don't believe for 1 minute that anybody, including Hani The Magnificent, could slit throats and assume command of a 757 for the first time in his life and fly that maneuver as interpreted by Stutt and Legge.

Neither do a handful of line pilots in the type, sim.
Click to expand...

So I'm just a lowly Commercial and CFI with about 1200 hours. Biggest thing I've every flown is a Beech Baron. Though I do have about 30 hours of aerobatics in the very lovely Mudry Cap-10 if that matters. From my lowly perspective I don't see a damned thing impossible about what he did. The turn was sloppy and frankly, pointing a plane at an object isn't all that hard. We all teach our students that if something appears suspended in the windscreen you're gonna hit it.

It wasn't like he was being asked to do a short field landing or takeoff from Denver on a 90 degree day. Just not seeing why you think someone needed Chuck Yeager skills to point the plane at a huge, unmoving target.
 
Gaius46 said:
So I'm just a lowly Commercial and CFI with about 1200 hours. Biggest thing I've every flown is a Beech Baron. Though I do have about 30 hours of aerobatics in the very lovely Mudry Cap-10 if that matters. From my lowly perspective I don't see a damned thing impossible about what he did. The turn was sloppy and frankly, pointing a plane at an object isn't all that hard. We all teach our students that if something appears suspended in the windscreen you're gonna hit it.

It wasn't like he was being asked to do a short field landing or takeoff from Denver on a 90 degree day. Just not seeing why you think someone needed Chuck Yeager skills to point the plane at a huge, unmoving target.
Click to expand...

Other airline pilots have stated the maneuver was impossible. Basically the hijacker only had to get lucky once. Of course having other pilots agree with the "official report" is ignored by some posters or they will say it is misinformation.
 
mike2810 said:
Other airline pilots have stated the maneuver was impossible. Basically the hijacker only had to get lucky once. Of course having other pilots agree with the "official report" is ignored by some posters or they will say it is misinformation.
Click to expand...

The ones who say it was impossible often refer to "steep spirals" and "high G turns."

These people are simply analyzing a different maneuver than the rest of us. Somebody heard the phrase from an unreliable source, the game of telephone commences, and some pilots hear about a high-G diving turn in a 757 and naturally think such a thing requires a high level of skill.

Thoreau72 thinks a high-G tight spiral is what the "official cover story" depicts, which is why he thinks it's a skilled maneuver. He will never watch the video I posted, because he knows it shows an easy, lazy, and frankly sloppy maneuver.
 
I'll worry about the maneuver when I see good pictures of at least 50 airliner seats from the Pentagon.

LOL
 
Deuce said:
The ones who say it was impossible often refer to "steep spirals" and "high G turns."

These people are simply analyzing a different maneuver than the rest of us. Somebody heard the phrase from an unreliable source, the game of telephone commences, and some pilots hear about a high-G diving turn in a 757 and naturally think such a thing requires a high level of skill.

Thoreau72 thinks a high-G tight spiral is what the "official cover story" depicts, which is why he thinks it's a skilled maneuver. He will never watch the video I posted, because he knows it shows an easy, lazy, and frankly sloppy maneuver.
Click to expand...

You are most likely correct. I provided a link to a airline pilot that basically is saying, yep, a poor pilot could have pulled it off.
 
psikeyhackr said:
I'll worry about the maneuver when I see good pictures of at least 50 airliner seats from the Pentagon.

LOL
Click to expand...

Slamming into a reinforced concrete structure at five hundred miles and hour, then subjected to a jet fuel fire. Exactly what part of those cheap fabric seats do you expect would remain intact?
 
Deuce said:
Slamming into a reinforced concrete structure at five hundred miles and hour, then subjected to a jet fuel fire. Exactly what part of those cheap fabric seats do you expect would remain intact?
Click to expand...

If he saw pics of 50 seats he would claim they were planted because of course the impacts and fires should have destroyed them and thus it is proof that the ebil govt did it.
There is nothing you can do to convince a CTer that their beliefs are delusion once they have gone down that road, but you can help others avoid going there.
 
Gaius46 said:
So I'm just a lowly Commercial and CFI with about 1200 hours. Biggest thing I've every flown is a Beech Baron. Though I do have about 30 hours of aerobatics in the very lovely Mudry Cap-10 if that matters. From my lowly perspective I don't see a damned thing impossible about what he did. The turn was sloppy and frankly, pointing a plane at an object isn't all that hard. We all teach our students that if something appears suspended in the windscreen you're gonna hit it.

It wasn't like he was being asked to do a short field landing or takeoff from Denver on a 90 degree day. Just not seeing why you think someone needed Chuck Yeager skills to point the plane at a huge, unmoving target.
Click to expand...

Thank you for an honest statement of your licenses and experience. Would that the OP were so forthright.

Just curious as to whether or not you've had your Baron out to Vne +90? I would guess that you have never been to Vne+10, but who knows?

Considering that, you've no problem with Hani out to Vmo +90 in ground effect?

Any thoughts on Cimino's work on the FDR? He shows it is a forgery because it was unassigned to any airframe. If true, I would agree with him.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Thank you for an honest statement of your licenses and experience. Would that the OP were so forthright.

Just curious as to whether or not you've had your Baron out to Vne +90? I would guess that you have never been to Vne+10, but who knows?

Considering that, you've no problem with Hani out to Vmo +90 in ground effect?

Any thoughts on Cimino's work on the FDR? He shows it is a forgery because it was unassigned to any airframe. If true, I would agree with him.
Click to expand...

Oh look HD is bringing up again
Still waiting for you to explain why ground effect would be a factor. As a "flight instructor" you shouldn't have to much trouble doing so.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Thank you for an honest statement of your licenses and experience. Would that the OP were so forthright.

Just curious as to whether or not you've had your Baron out to Vne +90? I would guess that you have never been to Vne+10, but who knows?

Considering that, you've no problem with Hani out to Vmo +90 in ground effect?

Any thoughts on Cimino's work on the FDR? He shows it is a forgery because it was unassigned to any airframe. If true, I would agree with him.
Click to expand...


Since I pay for gas and maintenance I tend to stay pretty much in the middle of the envelope so no excursions past Vne in normal category aircraft. Even when flying aerobatics I don't ever recall
exceeding Vne.


Vne, as I understand it, is not a design limit, it's a calculated limit and is 90% of Vd which is a design limit. The real issue, especially in smooth air and accelerated flight, is flutter and designs are supposed to be flutter free at least to 1.2 times Vd. So a plane should in smooth air flight straight should be fine at speeds around 133% of Vne if not more.

Ground effect reduces induced drag and comes into play at about 1 wingspan above the ground and lower. Effect would be to arrest the sink rate and cause him to over shoot the point he intended to hit.
Not sure what the approach angle was - and don't have time to look into it now - but I have to assume that given his speed he was below about 150' (the wingspan of a 767) for not more than a few seconds, assuredly not enough time for aerodynamic changes to overcome inertia and alter the flight path in any appreciable way.

As to the FDR I haven't read anything about it. I will when I have a few minutes.
 
Gaius46 said:
Since I pay for gas and maintenance I tend to stay pretty much in the middle of the envelope so no excursions past Vne in normal category aircraft. Even when flying aerobatics I don't ever recall
exceeding Vne.


Vne, as I understand it, is not a design limit, it's a calculated limit and is 90% of Vd which is a design limit. The real issue, especially in smooth air and accelerated flight, is flutter and designs are supposed to be flutter free at least to 1.2 times Vd. So a plane should in smooth air flight straight should be fine at speeds around 133% of Vne if not more.

Ground effect reduces induced drag and comes into play at about 1 wingspan above the ground and lower. Effect would be to arrest the sink rate and cause him to over shoot the point he intended to hit.
Not sure what the approach angle was - and don't have time to look into it now - but I have to assume that given his speed he was below about 150' (the wingspan of a 767) for not more than a few seconds, assuredly not enough time for aerodynamic changes to overcome inertia and alter the flight path in any appreciable way.

As to the FDR I haven't read anything about it. I will when I have a few minutes.
Click to expand...

1. High speeds do not make a plane difficult to fly in ground effect. I am sure you have done high speed low passes there is really no discernable problem. In fact the Russians were very keen on high speed ground effect craft
https://www.treehugger.com/aviation/fly-fast-low-and-fuel-efficient-with-ground-effect.html

Of course HH AkA Thoreau, being a "flight instructor" should be able to explain to you why HE thinks it would require great skill to fly a plane at high speed near the ground. But dont hold your breath waiting for him to.

2. The FDR bit is about intentionally misinterpreted data to show that the maneuver would involve too high of a G-load (after doing some very very bad math) and to claim the FDR was actually faked and thus no plane there at all. You know typical truther lies. You can google the debunking of truther FDR claims fairly easily
https://www.google.ca/search?safe=o...1qubWAhUF5YMKHTpvAhUQBQgiKAA&biw=1600&bih=737
 
Thoreau72 said:
Thank you for an honest statement of your licenses and experience. Would that the OP were so forthright.

Just curious as to whether or not you've had your Baron out to Vne +90? I would guess that you have never been to Vne+10, but who knows?

Considering that, you've no problem with Hani out to Vmo +90 in ground effect?

Any thoughts on Cimino's work on the FDR? He shows it is a forgery because it was unassigned to any airframe. If true, I would agree with him.
Click to expand...

Ground effect again. :roll:

Ground effect at Vmo +90 would be indistinguishable from zero. Ground effect is stronger at high angles of attack. Hani's angle of attack was basically nothing due to the speed.

Furthermore, ground effect is only noticeable about a half wingspan from the ground, which at that speed would have been less than one second. Not enough to measurably deflect the flight path of an aircraft traveling at that speed.

Surely a flight instructor would be aware of these things.

The aircraft was only about 10% above a speed it was tested at, in a real world dive with a 1.5G pullout. Only minor fluttering would occur at this speed, and this is backed up by the FDR's vertical G-loading data.
 
Thoreau, I've posted my flight experience and type ratings before, more than once. Do you deny this? Did you merely forget?
 
Quag said:
1. High speeds do not make a plane difficult to fly in ground effect. I am sure you have done high speed low passes there is really no discernable problem. In fact the Russians were very keen on high speed ground effect craft
https://www.treehugger.com/aviation/fly-fast-low-and-fuel-efficient-with-ground-effect.html

Of course HH AkA Thoreau, being a "flight instructor" should be able to explain to you why HE thinks it would require great skill to fly a plane at high speed near the ground. But dont hold your breath waiting for him to.

2. The FDR bit is about intentionally misinterpreted data to show that the maneuver would involve too high of a G-load (after doing some very very bad math) and to claim the FDR was actually faked and thus no plane there at all. You know typical truther lies. You can google the debunking of truther FDR claims fairly easily
https://www.google.ca/search?safe=o...1qubWAhUF5YMKHTpvAhUQBQgiKAA&biw=1600&bih=737
Click to expand...

I used to regularly fly in and out of a few local grass fields - mostly in Cessna singles. SOP for takeoff is 10 degrees of flaps, get the yoke all the way back to unweight the nosewheel and once the mains come off the ground (usually around 45 kts or so) level off and accelerate in ground effect to normal takeoff speed. Done it more times than I can count and more than once on long asphalt runway just to accelerate to cruise speed while close to the ground. Not a big deal.

I read most of the paper that gamolon - the post above yours - referenced about the FDR data. One graph shows the descent rate during the final 14 seconds of flight. It's pretty consistently at about 100fps and as near as I can tell the plane was in ground effect for no more than about a second and a half - if that. There is absolutely no way on earth ground effect would have altered the plane's path or presented any kind of a controllability issue. A second and a half out it was a done deal.
 
Gaius46 said:
I used to regularly fly in and out of a few local grass fields - mostly in Cessna singles. SOP for takeoff is 10 degrees of flaps, get the yoke all the way back to unweight the nosewheel and once the mains come off the ground (usually around 45 kts or so) level off and accelerate in ground effect to normal takeoff speed. Done it more times than I can count and more than once on long asphalt runway just to accelerate to cruise speed while close to the ground. Not a big deal.

I read most of the paper that gamolon - the post above yours - referenced about the FDR data. One graph shows the descent rate during the final 14 seconds of flight. It's pretty consistently at about 100fps and as near as I can tell the plane was in ground effect for no more than about a second and a half - if that. There is absolutely no way on earth ground effect would have altered the plane's path or presented any kind of a controllability issue. A second and a half out it was a done deal.
Click to expand...

The point is even if it was 100 seconds ground effect would not have any discernable effect requiring expert piloting skills.
You notice it most at low speeds and high angles of attack, not high speed low angle of attack.
As a "flight instructor" HD should know this leaving to the conclusion he is either lying when he talks about ground effect being a factor or he is lying when he claims to be a "flight instructor" Ill let you guess which one I suspect.
 
Gaius46 said:
Since I pay for gas and maintenance I tend to stay pretty much in the middle of the envelope so no excursions past Vne in normal category aircraft. Even when flying aerobatics I don't ever recall
exceeding Vne.


Vne, as I understand it, is not a design limit, it's a calculated limit and is 90% of Vd which is a design limit. The real issue, especially in smooth air and accelerated flight, is flutter and designs are supposed to be flutter free at least to 1.2 times Vd. So a plane should in smooth air flight straight should be fine at speeds around 133% of Vne if not more.

Ground effect reduces induced drag and comes into play at about 1 wingspan above the ground and lower. Effect would be to arrest the sink rate and cause him to over shoot the point he intended to hit.
Not sure what the approach angle was - and don't have time to look into it now - but I have to assume that given his speed he was below about 150' (the wingspan of a 767) for not more than a few seconds, assuredly not enough time for aerodynamic changes to overcome inertia and alter the flight path in any appreciable way.

As to the FDR I haven't read anything about it. I will when I have a few minutes.
Click to expand...

Thank you for another honest post, however redundant. We're both CFI. Dennis Cimino is the fellow who has analyzed the FDR for 77. I hope you do take the time to inform yourself.

I did a few years as a production test pilot for 2 small aircraft manufacturers, and going out to Vne is harder than you might think. The airframe does not like it. Vmo +90 is an absurd claim, but that's how Stutt and Legge read the data years ago.

Being a pilot and apparently curious about what did happen, you should consider visiting Pilots For 911 Truth website. Much information there, and somewhere you will read the testimonies of several men who fly the 757 for a living. Yes, they are typed, unlike Hani The Magnificent. :lol:
 
Deuce said:
Thoreau, I've posted my flight experience and type ratings before, more than once. Do you deny this? Did you merely forget?
Click to expand...

I guess I merely forgot Deuce. For some reason I did remember you had some lessons in an R-22. It's probably asking too much for a repeat, Pete. ;)
 
Thoreau72 said:
Thank you for another honest post, however redundant. We're both CFI. Dennis Cimino is the fellow who has analyzed the FDR for 77. I hope you do take the time to inform yourself.

I did a few years as a production test pilot for 2 small aircraft manufacturers, and going out to Vne is harder than you might think. The airframe does not like it. Vmo +90 is an absurd claim, but that's how Stutt and Legge read the data years ago.

Being a pilot and apparently curious about what did happen, you should consider visiting Pilots For 911 Truth website. Much information there, and somewhere you will read the testimonies of several men who fly the 757 for a living. Yes, they are typed, unlike Hani The Magnificent. :lol:
Click to expand...

Lol HDs claiming to be a test pilot again
 
Thoreau72 said:
I guess I merely forgot Deuce. For some reason I did remember you had some lessons in an R-22. It's probably asking too much for a repeat, Pete. ;)
Click to expand...

He has more flight experience than you do as your moronic comments about ground effect prove.
No one with a pilots licence can honestly claim that ground effect makes it more difficult to fly fast at low altitude
 
Thoreau72 said:
I guess I merely forgot Deuce. For some reason I did remember you had some lessons in an R-22. It's probably asking too much for a repeat, Pete. ;)
Click to expand...

I will tell you my full aviation experience any time you want. All you or camlok need to do is tell me which points I've made you will then concede as accurate.
 
Quag said:
He has more flight experience than you do as your moronic comments about ground effect prove.
No one with a pilots licence can honestly claim that ground effect makes it more difficult to fly fast at low altitude
Click to expand...

Yeah, no test pilot would ever make such a ludicrous and fundamental mistake regarding ground effect. You'd have to literally have no clue that ground effect is stronger at high angles of attack, or that high airspeed means low angle of attack. This isn't exactly advanced aerodynamics.
 
Deuce said:
I will tell you my full aviation experience any time you want. All you or camlok need to do is tell me which points I've made you will then concede as accurate.
Click to expand...

Oh, you want a pre-nuptial agreement. LOL, I'm not surprised. The only point you've made here is that you are rather insecure on your position. You've never flown over Vmo, but you are certain a 350 hour pilot with a bad reputation, first time ever in a Boeing, could do it.

Are both feet now in your mouth? :lol:
 
Thoreau72 said:
Oh, you want a pre-nuptial agreement. LOL, I'm not surprised. The only point you've made here is that you are rather insecure on your position. You've never flown over Vmo, but you are certain a 350 hour pilot with a bad reputation, first time ever in a Boeing, could do it.

Are both feet now in your mouth? :lol:
Click to expand...

Your feet have been in your mouth for a long time now HD
 
Thoreau72 said:
Oh, you want a pre-nuptial agreement. LOL, I'm not surprised. The only point you've made here is that you are rather insecure on your position. You've never flown over Vmo, but you are certain a 350 hour pilot with a bad reputation, first time ever in a Boeing, could do it.

Are both feet now in your mouth? :lol:
Click to expand...

Flying past Vmo does not require skill. It requires thrust. This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

But you just proved my point: my experience was just a blatant and desperate diversion attempt on your part. I could show you proof I have ten thousand hours in a 757 and you wouldn't change your mind on a single thing I've said.

Further proof you're not a jet pilot, you're now claiming I've never flown over Vmo. Every jet pilot has had that alarm sound at some point. Since you've never been in a jet, you're unaware of this.

Unless there's someone who went straight from a piston to an Airbus, I guess. Baby's First Autopilot generally prevents airspeed excursions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom