Re: FAO Friar Tuck II

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:05:25 +0000, FriarTuck wrote:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:22:30 -0700, parris_k wrote:

You claimed that Hanjour's turn (330 degree turn while losing a couiple
of thousand feet of height) before hitting the Pentagon was a manouver
"The Red Arrows would have been proud of".

How does this claim square with e.g. the JARS syllabus which has
student pilots achieveing such turns in their first lesson? ("Effects
of controls") and able to do it WITHOUT losing height by lesson 6 (i.e.
after 6 hours of training, best case)?

What are your qualifications for making such assertions?

http://nzflyer.blogspot.com/2007/10/lesson-one-effects-of-controls-
as.html

you do sound ever so rational now... I'm almost lured into a
conversation... though closer examination seems to reveal you slyly
equating the turning circle of a cessna to the turning circle of a
757....

the first turn is an average airliner turn, the final turn is pretty
impressive.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/aa77_flight_path.png
.