Well I dunno, I've heard many of them say that the official speeds given (govt.) at that height were impossible.
It wouldn't be wise to dismiss them because they're not engineers, in my opinion.
It's been a while, I should look into it again. All I care about is the truth.
"Truth is the daughter of time, it will not always lie hid" something like that.
Well I dunno, I've heard many of them say that the official speeds given (govt.) at that height were impossible.
You heard morons repeating morons. The radar speeds clearly show them flying much slower.
The primary speed limit is the front windows because of bird strikes. They limit speed for safety considerations until an altitude where fewer bird strikes occur. Most are at take off and landing where they are already speed limited inside the airspace for safety anyways.
Additionally, the turbines and airframe have structural considerations as well as fuel consumption considerations, at lower altitudes. Exceeding these limits considerably stress everything while drastically increasing fuel burn (dense air means lots of fuel in a rich burn mode because ramping up rpm). Of course the POH is doing to be very conservative here.
Structurally the aircraft can travel 400-500 mph at lower altitudes with significant turbine and structural stress concerns. However control flutter kicks in within this lower range. So as you approach 500 mph, control is very iffy.
In other words, the aircraft could easily obtain the impact speeds and control required for impacts.
Structurally the aircraft can travel 400-500 mph at lower altitudes with significant turbine and structural stress concerns. However control flutter kicks in within this lower range. So as you approach 500 mph, control is very iffy.
In other words, the aircraft could easily obtain the impact speeds and control required for impacts.
Are you not contradicting yourself here?
You heard morons repeating morons.
Right, dozens of commercial pilots including some client pilots of mine were 'morons.'
You're funny.
No planes hit any buildings that day. "How so? I saw it with my own eyes, I've seen witnesses talking about it."
I tell people, have you ever seen an illusionist do the impossible? There you go.
Try skipping the ad hominin parts it cheapens your argument.
Not contradiction. You simply fail to understand. They are citing their POH. Again, already explained. You don't care.
Your position is as comical here as is your flat earth bullshit.
(post is archived)