The FIRST path shows the aircraft impacting near the helipad (pardon me, flying over the helipad) That radius is close enough and the calculations appear to be accurate. So that still rather extreme bank angle is planted in the viewers mind as being aerodynamically possible at FDR speeds, no less! As an after thought it is then mentioned that well, that's not exactly what happened, we'll now adjust it to the impact point.
No, best and worst cases of the last leg of the attack jet's flightpath that where within a reasonable margin of error of what the witnesses reported were analyzed. No specific flightpath is correct since we are only sure of the general claim that the plane flew north of the citgo.
Now, when it switches to the proper impact point, the razzle dazzle crap begins. The radius is WRONG. The radius for that flight path is approximately 7025'. That computes to a bank angle of 67.4 degrees, 2.6 G's at 460 knots.
I'm pretty sure this calculation is wrong, but since I'm not qualified to answer, I'll let Rob reply. Whatever imaginary flightpath Reheat is conjuring up, however, is not the correct flightpath- again, we are testing the general claim that the plane flew north of the citgo.
Where those huge turn radii and very shallow bank angles are derived from in the latter portion of the cartoon is anyone's guess. It is never clearly stated how and where those radii were derived nor to what flight path they apply.
As shown in the video, the radii were determined by a simple equation and some input variables.
Note that no vertical pull-up was addressed at all throughout the entire charade.
Marie De La Cerda says that she initially thought the plane impacted on the other side of the Pentagon. Boger also places the plane higher in the air relative to the impact hole. Morin, by virtue of the fact that he saw the vertical stabilizer at the time of the explosion, also points to a high altitude. Thus any G increase due to a pull-up is negligible.
The innuendo of some type of exotic aircraft design was to be expected. It's funny that the witnesses describe a transport category aircraft, but that might be an inconvenient fact.
You idiot! How can you witness vectored thrust, unconventional wing designs, or any other aircraft modificaton if you don't know they exist!
I'd like to thank PFT for exposing the pseudoskepticism used by so-called "aviation professionals" such as the anonymous "Reheat"!