Doesn't the recent incident of the Seattle airport worker who stole and flew a 'plane for an hour demonstrate that this kind of thing is more than possible? The guy had little to no flying experience yet somehow managed to loop the loop and pull the aircraft out of a steep dive while very close to the ground. Ironically, about the only thing he didn't know how to do was land the 'plane, something the 9/11 hijack pilots apparently didn't bother training to do.
I agree.
The people who said he showed great skill only experienced pilots can don't make sense to me. First off usually planes like that don't do aerobatics. In pilot training we had to enter maneuvers at the proper speed, and had to perform the maneuver by the book. The guy did barrel rolls, but we don't know how good the roll was because we are not in the plane. Bad landings look bad from the cockpit, but might look okay from an observer on the ground. Until landing become gross, they don't appear 'bad' from an outside observer.
How can he do the maneuvers for the first time in the plane? First, he does not care how it turns out. When I had to do aerobatic in the T-37/T-38 they had to be by the book, and I was being graded, and I wanted to do it again. He had no pressure, and did not care if he stalled out or failed. He had no inhibition to try, or pressure to be perfect, or make a passing grade.
Plus, saying the plane is complex is not the big picture. Saying it is more complex than a C-150 (single engine prop) is true for the systems, but not for the basic flying, save the fact you have two engine which is more complex for flying if things go wrong, albeit when your single engine goes, you are landing, now. You don't need the complex systems, ADI, etc for VFR flying, you need to see. I don't see it easier to fly a small single engine vs jet.
Ok Mick, so you agree that you didn't prove that the official maneuver - including the impact with official speed - is doable?
Some simulators I have flown crash if you exceed the limits - it just stops. This is a training thing, and not what the real aircraft do. I have flown a KC-135 past the speed limit, and it did not crash. The only anomaly when I was flying at the Vmo limit or slight above, was some flutter on the aileron, which was annoying. When a fellow pilot exceeded the speed limit by a "bunch", part of wing skin under the leading edge was delaminated - the crew chief for that plane was past upset.
In the jets I have flown, when the pilots exceeded limits the worse was parts ripped off, like a gear door. On 9/11 we may have seen part falling off if any of the planes had exceeded the limits for long, but they did not exceed limits past seconds, and which limits were they? Do you know Zett eL, which limit and by how much it was exceeded, or are rumors on the Internet good enough.
Flight 11 was flying at a flight manual speed, at or near Vd - but a speed which above what normal operatoins woujld be, but at a speed flight tested.
Flight 175 exceeded Vd, but the plane was designed in the days where it was to be flutter free past Vd, to 1.2Vd, which is not relaxed to 1.15Vd. Search this forum for more info
Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 483.5 knots, it is seen flying at the this speed on the FDR, thus it really happend, the engines were at 100 percent at impact. There is no reason the 757 can't reach this speed, it has not been flight tested to that speed by a murderer at 70 feet MSL.
Flight 93 crashed into the ground at high speed, forgot the speed, I can look it up. This terrorist pilot was pulling high g to keep the passengers from taking the cockpit, and he flew 93 into the ground on purpose, like the guy in Seatle did..
good recreation Mick. Mind if I add it to the blog?
