Piston driven or turboprop? Take a look at the speeds achieved by some propeller aircraft. Even if you're looking at piston engines only, you'll find some pretty significant speeds are possible. You'll also find some pretty damn big and heavy propeller aircraft.
What level of turbulence are we talking? Are you insinuating that no level of turbulence can cause a wing to fail on a propeller aircraft? Not true.
I think I understand what you were trying to say, but what you actually said was false.
The problem with forming an opinion and digging in like a tick when you don't have the independent knowledge to arrive at your own informed conclusion is that you're at the mercy of whichever party argues their position with the most charisma. I know this to be true because I have won many arguments and influenced many people while basically talking out of my ass. (Don't quote me on that.)
For this reason, I'll put this one in the **** If I Know column.
If one assumes that a 767 can travel at the observed speeds without breaking up, then the conclusion that the plane that hit the south tower could not be a Boeing 767 does indeed become invalid. That would be a good thing, because I for one do not want to imagine what else it could be. Unfortunately we have precedent for this model aircraft becoming unstable and disintegrating at these speeds, so we are inclined to believe that this limit is real, regardless of opinion to the contrary.
In any case, structural failure is irrelevant to the conclusion that it is incredibly unlikely that al-Sheshhi could perform the observed maneuvers that day.
No thanks. I'm scientifically trained and posting in a community of skeptics. There is nothing in this discussion that is above pay grade.Quote:
This, to me seems like one of those times where the level of knowledge required to understand an issue for yourself is so high that it's probably best if we just admit we have no fucking clue.
I said it before - Vmo is not "disintegration speed." It's the speed at which FAA has said "you can't take this aircraft any faster without risking safety." It's not a hard line that says the airplane will fall apart if you go faster. It's certainly slower than Vdf, which is the maximum descent speed (generally in jets 0.5 mach greater than Vmo - sorry, misplaced the source on this one).
At some point, you need to consider that you're on the wrong side of Occam's razor.
Here, read this:
a) 767s have 2 engines so they can operate fully on just one.
b) .86 mach at sea level would be 654mph
c) Given 2 engines, it is possible to reach .86 mach at sea level
d) Given descent angle, it is possible to exceed .86 mach
e) a fully FAA certified simulator achieved the speeds at altitudes seen on 9/11
Also, food for thought: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/23.253
Originally Posted by 14 CFR 23.253