Boeing 767 Low-altitude Top Speed Options

[Guest_Ningen_*]

Does anyone know how fast a Boeing 767 can fly at low altitude? The top speed at cruising altitude is over 500 mph, but I've heard the following about flight at 700 feet altitude:

The power plant will max out at 330 mph.

The plane will begin to shake itself apart at over 220 mph.

At 700 feet altitude, the air is so thick that if you go too fast you max the rotation of the turbines, the engines can't suck in air, and the engine starts acting as a brake.

Does this make sense?

Where could I get more detailed information about flight limitations (or whatever you call it) of the Boeing 767?

Thank you.

This post has been edited by Ningen: Sep 2 2007, 04:19 AM

[rob balsamo]

I havent cross checked your numbers, however, all your calculations are based on a stock 767 with stock engines in level flight which was never positively identified as the aircraft used and observed/video taped by multiple witnesses in NYC, and could have been modified in any way. Your essay is moot until the mentioned variables are confirmed and verified.

With that said, we already know the aircraft was not in level flight, in which weight now adds to the thrust vector causing higher speeds than the max thrust. Vmo/Mmo limitations for a stock 767 are clear. We are still trying to obtain wind tunnel data to see if a stock 767 can structurally perform at such speeds. If it cannot, the govt story has once again been proven a lie. But this also does not mean "No planes" were used.

[tnemelckram]

Hi all! Interesting. With respect to Rob's No. 46:

We are still trying to obtain wind tunnel data to see if a stock 767 can structurally perform at such speeds.

Is it possible to soup up and/or reinforce a stock 767 or 757 so that it exceeds the relevant limits? Sort of like what the NASCAR guys do with a standard manufacturer's car. Make the engines more powerful so it is faster, beef up the control surfaces, strengthen the structure, change the computer tolerances, whatever.

But this also does not mean "No planes" were used.

I think that such souped up planes are a possibility at the Pentagon or WTC 2, in each case as an alternative to or in addition to some type of remote guidance. Some examples:

1. At WTC 2, load the passengers and hijackers on to a souped up plane with remote guidance and use it as shown on the reliable films of the crash.

2. At the Pentagon, just soup it up so that it can maneuver better for the flyover and fly faster so it can hightail its way out of there and minimize the chances that it will be seen. The modifications don't have to take passenger weight, safety or comfort into account and can "push the envelope" because a pilot can be specifically trained on the souped up plane beforehand. For a pilot, I'd use a general. It is likely that only people that high would be involved in this kind of monkey business, and someone involved would be highly motivated to succeed at this "mission". And his shoulder braids would be flapping and maybe his hat would fly off.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jan 25 2009, 01:35 PM