In news:PmGmg.80521$IK3.466@pd7tw1no,
Robert Weldon <rweldon.spamblock@jrpspamblock.ca> typed:

Wrong. Wings have structural limits IOW there is a limit to the air
pressure
a wing can deal with. If you exceed a certain air speed in descent a
plane can go into an irrecoverable verticle dive or death spin and
in some cases the wings will simply snap off.

And how steep of a dive would do that?  And that still isn't a stall,
a stall is the loss of lift on part or all of a wing, usually caused
by slow speed of a HIGH angle of attack, ie, pulling up too steeply.
And those planes are engineered quite well anyway.  They can easily
dive 5000 feet in a fairly short distance, especially if they slow
down first.

Basically according to Wikipedia a high speed stall is caused by the angle
of attack of the wings in relation to the airflow, when attempting to pull
up can create more than 1g

Mind I dare say the reason why I have experienced this effect in Warbirds
III is because one tends to fly fairly recklessly in that in any case
especially since it also involves being shot at and taking fairly violent
evasive action :)

 >Any

one who has flown even a flight simulator on a computer would be
aware of how difficult it is to manually land a large aircraft, the
amount of pre-planning and control necessary. Most civilian
commercial aircraft pilots
rely on very sophisticated technology of one sort of another,
guidance systems, navigation aids, computers and air traffic
control in order to land
safely on a runway.

But they weren't trying to land, they were trying to ram the biggest
building in the area. And actually, no, it is quite easy to do that,
they just aim the plane at the tower, and pin the throttle, a monkey
could do it. And if you review the films, one of the planes very
nearly missed.

Do you know the kind of distance required to turn a large passenger
jet travelling at 500 mph?

The buildings are easy enough to spot from far enough out that they
had plenty of time to line up on them.  How do you know they were
flying at 500 mph the whole time?

I suppose that is a point. Not that sure how a large Jet would handle.
However the flying Fortress in Warbirds III is a bit lacking in
manoeuvrability.If you don't get it lined up well in a bombing run it's
impossible to correct it later on.

Yet we are expected to believe two highly inexperienced amateur
pilots managed to fly two large passenger jets into these towers
with deadly accuracy with no proper navigation aids and extremely
limited flying experience, under conditions that were far from
ideal. i.e a hijacking situation and of course knowing they were
flying to their deaths.

As I said, it is easy to do exactly that.  Don't forget that they
had recieved flight training in commercial jets, not Cessnas.

Well yes that's obvious

The problem is even highly experienced commercial pilots would have
difficulty flying a passenger jet into a particular building
hundreds of miles away with practically no navigational aids. It
might be easy in a Cessna, or in a flight simulator, but of course
flight simulators do have navigational aids and would allow you to
make a second attempt in any case.

The fact that both missions were accomplished with such deadly
military accuracy does suggest whoever was flying those planes was
far from inexperienced. and/or had help from external sources, such
as some form of ground based pathfinder system using geographically
separated radio signals
as was used by bomber pilots in WWII to find whole cities, and
possibly some
form of ground based radar tracking system clandestine air traffic
control housed in a van or truck. Because without some form of
external aids it would be quite a feat for even a highly
experienced military pilot to undertake such a mission with such
deadly clinical accuracy. Whilst one might accept luck could play
a part in a single sucessful mission not only do you have it
happening twice but 3 times if you count the Pentagon.

--
Amanda

Or maybe they recieved enough training to set the autopilot to find
New York, or used a map, you know, those pieces of paper that show
where things are, then looked out the window until they saw the
biggest fucking buildings in the area.  They were not particularly
hard to see.  And of course the smoke from the first hit would have
been easy to see by the second plane. The same goes for the
Pentagon, it is pretty easy to spot from the air.

We are talking Dick Dastardly and Mutely in Catch the Pigeon...right?

What the hell has that statement have to do with anything?

LOL :)

Have you ever been up in an

airplane?

Yes I have flown as a passenger on a number of occasions. But to be
honest apart from actually taking flying lessons, one can probably
get a better rough idea of how different planes handle on a flight
simulator. I have Warbirds III on my computer, mind the biggest
plane in that is the B17 Flying Fortress LOL That's not easy to
manoeuvre. However  I think I did once successfully fly the spitfire
in a Victory Roll between some factory chimneys, but managed to hit
them quite a few time before getting it right good job one has
endless lives and and unlimited supply of virtual aircraft
to trash :)

--
Amanda

I have actually flown planes, small ones, admittedly, but it is
amazing what you can see and how far you can see.  That was the main
point I was trying to make.  Also, although I don't see the
relevance, I have played just about every flight sim out there, and
it is quite easy to ram a big building, or even a pretty small
target, without much practice.  I even managed to put an f-16 into a
pup tent at full throttle with only a few tries.

Yes there are a couple of hangers one can fly through in Warbirds which can
be entertaining :)
-- 
Amanda