QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 26 2011, 03:49 AM)
Did Stutt ever concede that he was wrong for discarding the PA readings after rob had pointed out his "misconceptions"?
I think the True Altitudes he've send to me look too high.
My problem which arised is when I briefly try his "True Altitudes" to fit them on the theoretical Track Angle/GS trajectory from the "impact point" (I've carefully ploted meanwhile
), and I find that if he were right with the "True Altitude" values, then the plane would clear the VDOT >~85ft above it and even if I then subtract from his true altitude values this >85ft to let the plane clear just somewhere couple of ft (I don't know exactly I still didn't try to calculate it) above the top of VDOT, then I get the plane in height of the Pentagon roof in the last subframe, so considerably higher than the lightpoles, and if I add 15 ft to clear the VDOT better ( I don't suppose the perps would too risk to crash into it), then the plane, if I calculate it well would in the last subframe clear just
~3ft (doesn't remind me this number something?) above the Pentagon's roof.
Legge/Stutt claim that the aircraft was travelling at 560mph (?) at this point. Say 800fps for argument sake.
We should count with the values which are decoded from the FDR (by Mr. Warren Stutt himself) - The speed values for last subframes added to the record by Mr. Stutt:
151365 472 kts TAS 469 kts GS
151366 476 kts TAS 473 kts GS
151367 484 kts TAS 478 kts GS
151368 488 kts TAS 483 kts GS
The Lat/Lon positions in the last subframes:
151365 38,86705 -77,06892
151366 38,86808 -77,06652
151367 38,86911 -77,06394
151368 38,87032 -77,06154
So, the aircraft had to execute a descent from 117ft agl (57 + 60) to 64ft (45 + 19) = 53ft in 0.5 seconds
= 106fps descent
BUT, Legge/Stutt also claim that the pullup was executed 0.7 seconds before reaching lightpole 1.
This I think is very valid argument putting the Mr. Legge/Stutt argumentation on its head.
A simultaneous 6000fpm descent and a "pullup" that never exceeded "2gs" and ended up in a "1.2º pitch" shallow descent through the lightpoles??
NOTE: There was also an alleged 124fps descent 2 seconds before this
(308ft ASL to 184ft ASL in one second)
Datapoints 151365 to 151366
Yeah as I see it what they achieve with their "earlier pull-up" it to considerably aggravate the descent rate needed and then the vertical accelerations again would not fit the values recorded in the FDR if the plane would really execute the kicking down of the lightpoles stunt.
*In the Legge/Stutt paper, Legge claimed that the "4ft reading" was at lightpole 3. And that such a low reading was due to various factors. The perceived physical damage to the pole shows a "break" at around 20ft.
The same method Legge used to establish the physical damage and the RADALT reading should then be applied to lightpoles 1 and 2 (-16ft)
35ft - 16ft = 19ft
The 4ft Radio Height reading is in the last subframe 153368 where is I'm afraid no way how to position it so exactly to fit it on the pole 3, the reading is for the whole subframe and we don't know when exactly within the 1 second span (the plane was flying ~250m/s) it was in fact measured and recorded. So the positioning the RH at the 3rd lightpole is in fact a pure speculation.
There is from logic also very much the possibility that the plane was then already above the roof of the Pentagon - as quite clearly show the Mr. Stutt's "True Altitude" values to be more than possible. (And as show some indicies from the radar data I'm now on to discuss only privately -at least before I'll get the exact DCA radar focal point height to corroborate some intricate findings with the PLA radar record where somebody apparently forget to erase some key blips...
) But anyway I would not much rely on RH Mr. Legge and Stutt are so praising -when the instrument was operating so well outside its certified operating envelope -at least I would not prefer it before the PA reading properly corrected to the local pressure and temperature, because as Rob showed the exactitude is pretty damn accurate.