Questions regarding a 757

[matt7723]

Guys,

I've been talking about the Pentagon with some guys on another message board, and they raise some questions which I do not have answers too. Basically, they are saying that it is impossible for a 757 going over 500mph to have been that close to the ground. Yes, they are wackos but without anything from actual 757 pilots they don't believe me. So, for anyone who flies/has flown the 757, is there any truth to their statements?

Thanks,

Matt

 

[gkrangers]

Structural damage?

 

[matt7723]

Structural damage?

Basically, they are saying that ground effect would cause them to be over 60ft off the ground while going over 500mph thus making it impossible a 757 hit the Pentagon....

 

[gkrangers]

So they are saying its impossible for an airplane to hit the ground at a high speed?

 

[big_al]

I never thought I'd say this, but some people give conspiracy theorists a bad name

 

[aussiefly]

hahahah you are so right big al. Cant fly low at high speed due to ground effect??? someone should probably Tell the mil guys then lol

 

[big_al]

I am a proud conspiracy theorist, my problem lies with the idea that these below average extremely low time pilots could have done what they did on 9-11. but talking about a ground effect stopping an airplane from hitting something? yeah umm, no

 

[RipCurl]

OK not to get into a conspiracy argument here, but I'm pretty sure you could teach a monkey to crash an airplane into a wall. Once you're up and cruising, it's all the same man. Pull back, houses get smaller; push forward, houses get bigger. Doesn't matter if you're flying a 150 or a 757.

 

[big_al]

I dont recall the bank angle and angles of attack used but you couldnt teach a monkey, and probably a monkey whos flight instructors said they were far below average pilots

 

[Fugawe]

Guys,

I've been talking about the Pentagon with some guys on another message board, and they raise some questions which I do not have answers too. Basically, they are saying that it is impossible for a 757 going over 500mph to have been that close to the ground. Yes, they are wackos but without anything from actual 757 pilots they don't believe me. So, for anyone who flies/has flown the 757, is there any truth to their statements?

Thanks,

Matt

YGBSM! Sounds like a bunch of monkeys sittin' around debating Socrates.

Placard speeds on the 757 are around 330/.87 I think (been awhile), but the plane will go a helluva lot faster, especially downhill. Mach tuck, flight control anomalies, and finally structural failure will occur -- but point the thing downhill and it'll go supersonic.......won't be pretty, but it will go super.

Can't go close to the ground fast because of ground effect......ha, that's a good one. That's a great example of an academic trying to explain reality when they have no experience. If that 757 was at 500KIAS, he wasn't in the flare and certainly wasn't gonna 'float' above the ground due to effect. At that speed, where do you think the ground effect vortices hit the aircraft?

The media says any jet going fast is going '500MPH' -- they don't have a friggin' clue. This jet could've been doing 300 or 350 and they'd not know the difference. Most have never seen a jet close to the ground doing over 200. Was there a black box or some other data that showed 500?

And.........the Pentagon jet was unlikely to have been cruisin' in at 10'AGL like some imply -- that's ludicrous. It was most likely in a shallow descent, accelerating all the way in. The video would not detect this.

Fugawe