IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Aircraft Speed Questions

dMz
post May 12 2008, 03:28 AM
Post #21



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 13 2008, 03:42 PM) *
Flying at that speed that close to the ground would be virtually impossible, or require special equipment such as that Nap of Earth flying, or whatever it's properly called.

"NoE for the DoD," I believe that it's "properly" called, but you may have once cashed a paycheck or two doing exactly that back in SE Asia, I suspect. ;)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 12 2008, 06:02 PM
Post #22





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,016
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Without an autopilot.... rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
simba
post Aug 5 2008, 10:31 AM
Post #23





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 39
Joined: 3-June 08
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 3,495



QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 13 2008, 11:42 PM) *
Transport aircraft are not meant to fly close to the ground, except configured during landing. Flying at that speed that close to the ground would be virtually impossible, or require special equipment such as that Nap of Earth flying, or whatever it's properly called.


Don't know what the approach speed is in these flyby but seems to me going full throttle before the climb begins and maybe someone can give a idication of the reached ground speed at low altitude.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9DSXVceQKM

It wasn't hani at the yoke... pilotfly.gif

This post has been edited by simba: Aug 5 2008, 10:41 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
UnderTow
post Aug 5 2008, 01:21 PM
Post #24





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 28-August 06
From: Virginia, USA
Member No.: 19



Good video. I'd say 300-350mph off the back of my head.
I would also opinion that this plane comes in at high throttle, then cuts throttle for the bank up.

As opposed to this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwcCiQS_F3A

Which does the opposite, flys in low power, then power up for the fly away.

Both of them are probably 200 feet too high for the light poles. smile.gif

Another facet of the first video, is how quickly a high speed 757 can climb out of the area, and silently.
Look at this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYZOByowrlU

Which appears to be the same plane as simba's link. Note that is a scant 10-15 seconds the 757 is basically gone.


Same Zoom level
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 6 2008, 07:31 PM
Post #25



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Safety: Flight at Excessive Speed
http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/flutter.html

Aircraft flight envelope
http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/umodule...flight_envelope

and O892's post #30:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10749560

Critical limiting speeds
http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/umodule2.html#critspeeds

Limiting loads and ultimate loads
http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/umodule...tml#limit_loads
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
keroseneaddict
post Oct 6 2008, 10:42 PM
Post #26





Group: Core Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 12-September 08
From: An Island off the coast of RSW
Member No.: 3,813



Just a thought, but having worked at training non jet transport pilots into jets, none have been able to execute high g go arounds and associated manuevers much less this kind of high and low g maneuver successfully.............
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
localbod
post Apr 16 2010, 02:47 PM
Post #27





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 37
Joined: 12-January 07
From: UK
Member No.: 433



QUOTE (too low, terrain @ Sep 24 2007, 11:13 AM) *
Speed limits B767:

turbulent airspeed: 290kt/.78M
Vmo/Mmo: 360kt/.86M
gear extend: 270kt/.82M
gear retract: 270kt
alternate gear extension: 250kt/.75M
max tyre speed: 225mph (= 196 kt)
min speed above FL250: Vref30+100 kt
min speed for clean LDG: Vref30+50 kt

Greetings
TLT



I was on youtube checking out cockpit videos etc.. and came across a short video titled 767-200 overspeed. The overspeed alarms cut in and i thought i heard one of the pilots remark '362'?!
The person who uploaded commented-' This was a test flight after a C check. The whole plane started vibrating when he pulled the speed brakes. It was like a stall buffet. I think we at mach .86 when he pulled the speed brakes. He fully extended them too!'
This just corroborates all of the numbers and real world flying experiences all of you guys have been saying.
Here is the link anyway.Apologies if this has already been posted.

<A href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRbzWQ2r118">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRbzWQ2r118</A>

localbod.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
michael72
post May 2 2010, 02:25 AM
Post #28





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 73
Joined: 30-June 09
Member No.: 4,447



On aircraft (767) speed of the second plane strike. I did a simple D = r x t formula to one of the videos that show the 2nd aircraft approaching. From when its nose is over another building to aprox. its impact is about 7 times its length. I was not sure of the model and a brief search did not turn that up but, from a 767-200 the length is 159', the 767-300, length is 180'. On one video clip that appears to be running at real time speed, I count about 2.5-3.0 seconds. Depending on those seconds and the possible lengths and total distance traveled I came up with about 360-415 mph. I did not figure speed in knots, and did this on the spur very quickly, but was wondering if anyone has done this with perhaps means to be more accurate. Seems a very close determination of speed could be made this way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 2 2010, 07:33 AM
Post #29





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The CNN video from the east should lend itself to this kind of time motion study (a la Chandler) and I have wondered why no one has tackled this. The plane length is irrelevant all one needs to do is identify say the nose and track its horizontal movement over time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 2 2010, 06:02 PM
Post #30





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,016
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Welcome Michael.

300 knots would be 345 statute.

So your numbers sound about right to me. I have long felt that 350 knots would be a reasonable speed for that scenario.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
michael72
post May 2 2010, 11:03 PM
Post #31





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 73
Joined: 30-June 09
Member No.: 4,447



Yes, I have thought of determining speed this way but never sat down to do it. I think you would need the aircraft length though as a measure standard. The 7 lengths totaled 1085' to 1247' from the point its nose was about even with a building to the left (east?) to the tower depending on the model. If I had it on a larger screen and was able to follow it real time and then slow it to measure lengths and know the exact lenght of the aircraft perhaps could pin down very close.

I applaud everyone with "Pilots for 911 Truth". I have been able to get some to look at pilots info and others sites like the architects, but am always amazed at the people who will not take a serious look, but dismiss things without a timely honest investigation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 3 2010, 05:37 AM
Post #32





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



You can use the side of the twin towers which is 208. Even if the camera is panning to follow the flight the distance (radius) is so far it would hardly matter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
michael72
post May 4 2010, 04:01 PM
Post #33





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 73
Joined: 30-June 09
Member No.: 4,447



gotcha, thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Jun 25 2011, 09:19 PM
Post #34





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 577
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (michael72 @ May 2 2010, 10:03 PM) *
Yes, I have thought of determining speed this way but never sat down to do it. I think you would need the aircraft length though as a measure standard. The 7 lengths totaled 1085' to 1247' from the point its nose was about even with a building to the left (east?) to the tower depending on the model. If I had it on a larger screen and was able to follow it real time and then slow it to measure lengths and know the exact lenght of the aircraft perhaps could pin down very close.

I applaud everyone with "Pilots for 911 Truth". I have been able to get some to look at pilots info and others sites like the architects, but am always amazed at the people who will not take a serious look, but dismiss things without a timely honest investigation.


Just a note:
With each length the plane moves perspective will cause the length to change.
So you need to take perspective into account. Since even a few feet lost in the
measurement can have a dramatic impact on the results.
Otherwise everything sounds just fine.

Well, back to reading.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jul 6 2011, 05:08 AM
Post #35





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (SanderO @ May 3 2010, 07:07 PM) *
You can use the side of the twin towers which is 208. Even if the camera is panning to follow the flight the distance (radius) is so far it would hardly matter.


Dear SanderO

I picked up on the advice that you gave Michael.

I wonder if you would mind turning your mind to a video I have recently placed on Youtube under 23investigator.

The purpose of the video is to consider the length of the aircraft showing in the original 'media video'.
For the purpose of the presentation, the length of the aircraft in the 'media video' has been used, when immediately before impact with Tower Two.
The image has been cut out of the 'media video' and transferred further to the right, so the back of the aircraft aligns with the left corner of Tower Two.
The length of the aircraft 'transferred' is exactly as it shows in the 'media video'.
This in 'reality', would then make the aircraft transferred, to comparison with the face of the Tower Two, shorter than it would be, if perspective could be determined from a vanishing point.

None the less, if the length of the aircraft 'transferred' is compared by ratio to the 208 feet length of the face of Tower Two, it shows as being 'approximately' 180 feet long, obviously longer if perspective was taken into account.
But as you point out to Michael, in the other plane.
With the distance of the camera from the building and the aircraft shown in the 'media video', although in a plane nearly perpendicular to the one you explained to Michael, I would think the difference would be fairly marginal.
But what ever it may be, it would make the aircraft in the 'media video' longer than 180 feet it scales to, by ratio comparison to the face of Tower Two.

At 180 feet, the aircraft in the 'media video' could not be United Airlines Boeing 767 222 N612UA, which was only 160 feet long.

Hope you have time to consider this.

Robert

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th July 2019 - 10:47 PM