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

 

[kevdog]

What are all you guys talking about. A 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Duh.

 

[mzaharis]

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.

Actually, the academic might agree with you. Ground effect is a circulation-based phenomenon, and lift is circulation * airspeed * density * span, and as you flow lower and faster (increased density and airspeed), circulation decreases. Hence, flying faster at low altitudes should decrease ground effect.

You just need to pick an academic who is familiar with the Kutta-Zhukovsky theorem (which should include any academic who is in aerospace engineering, the only academic discipline which would be able to comment in an informed manner on this issue).

 

[Learsforsale]

Actually, the academic might agree with you. Ground effect is a circulation-based phenomenon, and lift is circulation * airspeed * density * span, and as you flow lower and faster (increased density and airspeed), circulation decreases. Hence, flying faster at low altitudes should decrease ground effect.

You just need to pick an academic who is familiar with the Kutta-Zhukovsky theorem (which should include any academic who is in aerospace engineering, the only academic discipline which would be able to comment in an informed manner on this issue).

I think you beat me to the punch, since induced drag decreases with airspeed... I can assume that it would be approaching zero at 500mph or whatever speed it was going. And since ground effect reduces induced drag.. you see where I am going with this.

 

[Pantherjon]

National Geographic Channel just had on their 'Seconds From Disaster', the episode about the 757 striking the Pentagon..Some things they highlighted in the program:
1)At time of impact the FDR showed the aircraft at 530(they used MPH, so thats what 457KTS?) at an altitude of 10 feet in a slight bank to the left

2)Left engine and left wingtip hit a small concrete 'pad?' almost intataneously as the nose of the craft hitting the building

3) The hole that was punched out on the inside of the building at whats called 'A and E Road' was NOT the nose of the plane, it was from the explosive forces in the building

They showed the video that has been circulating the internet from the security camera..There are some conspiracy thoerists that say it was a missile, well the video is not conclusive either way, but there is signs of dirt being kicked up from something as it strikes the building. I think it is #2 above kicking up the dirt..

Just my thoughts.

 

[Metro752]

shoot, no 757, yet an FDR, wooot

 

[Gorilla]

Let's suppose for a moment it WAS a missile. There are two types, ground based, portable jobs like TOW and Javelin. The destruction at the Pentagon was too great for these, and that rules them out. The other option is a very large cruise type missile. I'm 95% sure long range missiles do NOT attack in this type of very shallow profile. A Tomahawk will nose over at a particular altitude and enter its attack mode at 30 to 45 degrees. This is so garbage like trees and towers will have no ability to deflect it from its course.

I'm not a missile expert, but I can't think of a missile type in our inventory that will do the damage we see, AND fly such a super-shallow profile. That leaves a <gasp> hijacked 757.

The ground effect story is total rubbish. Like gkrangers stated, does that mean any transport at high speed, near wings level, cannot crash because ground effect will be like a big, soft, fluffy pillow, and prevent it from hitting the ground? What a crock.

 

[TrafficInSight]

Stop watching videos you find on the internet.

 

[Fox-Tree]

shoot, no 757, yet an FDR, wooot

details, details - that's not important!! :laugh:

 

[smooshfacekitty]

If Filght 77 never hit the Pentagon, then where exactly is this plane and all it's passengers now? They must be on the 'Lost' island. Conspiracy theorists - what a bunch of morons.

 

[urflyingme?!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5XTsQ-9vvo

This is where the 757 went. ANybody who listens to that crap on the internet is ann ass

 

[acaTerry]

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.

Apparently you have not flown bigger, faster aircraft. Not a conspiracy theorist here, but I find the 50' at 500+ MPH hard to believe. Even with autopilot (which is much tighter than manual inputs), 40 foot deviations are continuous. For a low time, low skill pilot to do better...impossible. Don't say it was the autopilot, it only goes in 100 foot increments.
One thing is dumber than a conspiracy theorist, and that is a sheep who believes everything.

 

[RipCurl]

Apparently you have not flown bigger, faster aircraft. Not a conspiracy theorist here, but I find the 50' at 500+ MPH hard to believe...

Admittedly, I have not. But I just can't imagine it would be too hard to nose any airplane over and point it at a building that is almost a quarter mile across. Just because they hit the side of the building doesn't necessarily mean they were aiming for the side of the building. Perhaps they intended to impact in the courtyard? Anyways, I certainly don't think they were blasting along N.O.E. at 500 knots.

 

[Gorilla]

There is a bizarre interpretation in this thread that the bad guys flew a 757 at 50' for miles and miles, as in level flight. That's ridiculous. How about flying at 500', Pentagon in sight, begin a shallow descent, dish it out at the end because you got too shallow, and get 2 or 3 frames in a bad movie. You CANNOT extrapolate that movie back in time. Just because they were low and fast for 0.05 seconds doesn't mean they flew that way for any length of time.

Cospiracy guys, please address my previous point. There is NO missile in our inventory that flies that profile. Any engineer who designed missile software to fly at 0' to 100' would be fired, as that regime tends to be filled with trees, power lines, giraffes, etc. They come in low, but not that low, then nose over.

I have flown very low and very fast in the military. When your only task is to smack something, it just isn't that tough.

 

[Fugawe]

Apparently you have not flown bigger, faster aircraft. Not a conspiracy theorist here, but I find the 50' at 500+ MPH hard to believe. Even with autopilot (which is

much tighter than manual inputs), 40 foot deviations are continuous. For a low time, low skill pilot to do better...impossible. Don't say it was the autopilot, it only goes in 100 foot increments.
One thing is dumber than a conspiracy theorist, and that is a sheep who believes everything.

Wow....well somebody better tell those Blue Angel and Thuderbird guys (and others) to knock off those beak to beak passes with 800 knots of closure!!

Obviously it's impossible to be within a 40' window going fast..............

I've flown fighters, flown big jets, yeah there's slop depending on the situation -- but give most pilots a 757 and they can probably put it in a wall, and anyone with a little hand/eye could too....even fast.

Read the above posts.............the jet wasn't flying a low level for a mile at 50' then impacted -- that's stupid logic. It was in a shallow descent most likely, then smacked the bldg.

Stupid comments from rated pilots on this topic astound me.


Fugawe

 

[DrProc]

Wow....well somebody better tell those Blue Angel and Thuderbird guys (and others) to knock off those beak to beak passes with 800 knots of closure!!

Obviously it's impossible to be within a 40' window going fast..............

I've flown fighters, flown big jets, yeah there's slop depending on the situation -- but give most pilots a 757 and they can probably put it in a wall, and anyone with a little hand/eye could too....even fast.

Read the above posts.............the jet wasn't flying a low level for a mile at 50' then impacted -- that's stupid logic. It was in a shallow descent most likely, then smacked the bldg.

Stupid comments from rated pilots on this topic astound me.


Fugawe

Well put, completely agree. But then again ACATerry does fly the mighty RJ!

 

[PositionandHold]

The only odd thing I heard (9/11 commission report) was that AA only claimed one hull on insurance. If that is the case, then that would support the missile theory. When you look at the video, you don't see a 757 crashing into the pentagon. It looks more like it could have been a missile. But then what happened to the airplane, then?

All sorts of stuff you can read and read about.

 

[big_al]

Wow....well somebody better tell those Blue Angel and Thuderbird guys (and others) to knock off those beak to beak passes with 800 knots of closure!!

Obviously it's impossible to be within a 40' window going fast..............

I've flown fighters, flown big jets, yeah there's slop depending on the situation -- but give most pilots a 757 and they can probably put it in a wall, and anyone with a little hand/eye could too....even fast.

Read the above posts.............the jet wasn't flying a low level for a mile at 50' then impacted -- that's stupid logic. It was in a shallow descent most likely, then smacked the bldg.

Stupid comments from rated pilots on this topic astound me.


Fugawe

did you seriously just compare the skills of a blue angels pilot to guys who could barely keep cessnas in the air?

 

[SeanD]

I posted this on here once before. Ill do it again since I thinks its important to know. My very close friend witnessed the crash while sitting in traffic to go to work that morning at the Pentagon. He is a former fueler for Ogden at IAD and knows his aircraft very well. This is what he saw. While sitting in traffic he notice a 757 making very strange, sharp, uncontrolled turns at about 3000 ft. He had been listening to the radio about the WTC stuff and instantly knew this was going to hit something so he payed attention to every move it made. What he describes was that the airplane then dropped to about 100 or so feet racing towards the Pentagon. The left wing banked sharp causing the wingtip to strike a few car roofs. The pilot then pulled up quickly striking a light pole with the left engines edge then he pushed the airplane into the Pentagon. He said it did a snake like maneuver (down, up, down). The white stuff in the video is fuel leaking out after the wing tip hit the cars. He said the noise of the engines was like nothing he has ever heard in his life.

 

[smooshfacekitty]

The only odd thing I heard (9/11 commission report) was that AA only claimed one hull on insurance. If that is the case, then that would support the missile theory. When you look at the video, you don't see a 757 crashing into the pentagon. It looks more like it could have been a missile. But then what happened to the airplane, then?

All sorts of stuff you can read and read about.

Seriously then, where the hell is N644AA????? I saw the season finally of Lost last night and the plane hull is clearly Oceanic, not American Airlines. This plane just didn't up and disapper. Where all the passengers if the AA77 never hit the Pentagon? This thread is out of control.

Flight 77 departed Washington-Dulles at 08:10 for Los Angeles. The aircraft was hijacked by five terrorists. The hijackers took over control, reportedly switched off the transponder and changed course to Washington. Last reported data (08:56) show the aircraft flying at FL350 at 458 knots. Course was changed back to Washington and the aircraft descended for the city, approaching from the North. The Boeing reportedly passed overhead the White House and entered a tight 270deg turn, heading for the US Department of Defence building (the Pentagon). It clipped trees and lightposts before slamming into the Southwest face of the Pentagon. An explosion occurred and the building caught fire.

 

[acaTerry]

Thanks Big Al you said what I was going to say. A couple of you others bring up something I never thought of...the plane may not have been flown any length of time at 50 feet. I'd like to see a radar track of that flight, but I never really thought of that point anyway.
Dr. Proc....go pick another butt....
I'd also have to find it difficult to believe that only one camera was available to view at the Pentagon, which is after all, our nerve center for the US military.