Buffalo Roam: "OK hypewaders as a big shot IP, and stunt pilot extraordinaire, how about you showing your expertise, and show me that I am wrong by posting the Vne's for the altitudes that the Aircraft were flying at"
I don't consider myself a big shot, and I don't do "stunts". I have taught a lot of folks to fly, teaching primary through multi-engine and instrument ratings. I also enjoy aerobatics, soaring, and formation flying. In my aviation circles, people often compliment my flying abilities. I just think that anyone is bound to get good at anything one loves doing, and does a lot of.
But I don't fly Boeings. I know enough about large airliners to know that they aren't normally flown so fast down low because it's wasteful, rough, and generally not a nice (or legal) way to transport passengers. Obviously these big jets can be pushed hard, but that's just not for beginners.
"show me that I am wrong by posting the Vne's for the altitudes that the Aircraft were flying at"
I'm not in a dispute with you over 757 limitations. I think we both can agree that the 9-11 attackers were far exceeding normal operating limits. I am curious where you found VNEs by altitude for the 757. Can you post a link?
"you are the one who claims that I am wrong, so show, I check the bet to you, I am only a 120knt rotor head, now shit or get off the pot."
I am not, and have not been debating with you whether 757s can go this fast down low. My point is that such operation would be completely unusual and challenging for type-rated pilots, and very tricky flying for beginners. You're just twisting my questions out of proportion, in order to give the appearance that you are responding directly. It seems as if you often play a silly games of pretend "gotcha" instead of sincerely exploring topics.
"does a aircraft immediately self destruct upon reaching Vne,"
Of course not. But near the edge things do get unruly, and less forgiving of mistakes.
..." or does it have the ability to hold together for a unknown length of time and at some point past Vne start to come apart, is the self destruction that a plane past Vne, catastrophic?"
That's right- planes can hold together past VNE, and like any limits in engineering, there are margins-of-error and safety factors built into all limitations. The relevant fact here is simply that big, fat, aeroelastic jets certainly do get progressively harder to fly with precision when flown at unusually high speed in thick turbulent air.
So were isn't it possible for this to have happened, the speeds were not at Vne, and you just admitted that they can go fast down low, and it seems from the information that you posted, that the aircraft didn't accelerate to speed until after they had turned to final for the run, and I agree that they may have had more than basic training, the schools they attended had 4 axis flight simulators, and the Air Force, and all of the Airlines that I know of use Flight simulators for training, (procedural, emergency, and flight training), D level simulators.
You keep saying aero-elastic, as if it is something bad, and yes, I have seen the wings flex in flight, I have even seen film of a rotor flexing as it rotates, this summer I was out to Boeing at Everet, and saw the Sims of the new 777, and if you want to talk about aero-elasticity, that wing flexes over a 20 ft. arc.
One of the reasons for that flexing is to prevent catrostropic failure of main components, under stress, it is designed into the system, a rotor system wouldn't be able to function with out it and it goes through more stress induced flexing than any component on a Medium Airliner, hell just watch a B-52's wing, that flexes 16 feet I hear, and they made their penetration runs in the dirt. below 1000 agl. and the flex was necessary to the function of low level performance.
I'm not in a dispute with you over 757 limitations. I think we both can agree that the 9-11 attackers were far exceeding normal operating limits. I am curious where you found VNEs by altitude for the 757. Can you post a link?
This and a Lady named Leslie, at Boeing, I called Boeing was directed to her, and ask the question about Vne of 757 and 767 aircraft, plus;
plus;
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter III Aircraft speed.pdf
Target Flight Aircraft Impact Time Velocity
km/hr mph
North Tower AA-11 Boeing 767-200 8:46:20 AM 691 429
South Tower UA-175 Boeing 767-200 9:02:48 AM 810 503
Pentagon AA-77 Boeing 757-200 9:38 AM 555 345
The velocities listed in this table for the two WTC planes are in excellent agreement
with flight data based on radar provided by the NTSC1. The radar speeds are basically 10%
larger, a difference that could easily be explained by the higher altitude at which the aircraft
may have remained visible to radar and the probable speedup caused by the descent. Indeed,
during their final approach, the airplanes ¾whose transponders had been disabled¾ were
flying as low as some 300m (1000 ft) above the ground (I.e. the height of impact), an altitude
that is barely above the rooftops of the skyscrapers in lower Manhattan, so radar is likely to
have been blind to them. By contrast, the estimates given herein are based on the last mile of
flight prior to collision.
Some one posted a youtube clip of a modified, Royal New Zealand Air force 757, flying a hundred feet above the tarmac at some sort of air show. Needless to say the guy reckoned it was traveling at 500mph.
I got on the RNZAF website & emailed them the question. They said the max speed at sea level would be 400mph remembering that still not Vne.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRiCHgQnf9s
Here's their reply
"Thanks for your enquiry.
The Boeing 757 as currently operated by the RNZAF, is (in terms of performance) very similar to that of any 757 you will find around the World. The main difference is that we operate Rolls Royce engines which produce slightly more thrust than the more common Pratt & Whitney variant. Our maximum speed at sea level is approx 350 knots, or when converted to miles per hour equates to 400MPH.