Re: FAO Friar Tuck II

On 27 Aug, 12:11, FriarTuck <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:35:05 -0700, parris_k wrote:
On 27 Aug, 00:11, FriarTuck <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:16:25 -0700, parris_k wrote:
On 26 Aug, 23:03, FriarTuck <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:55:13 -0700, parris_k wrote:
the diameter of turn 2 (the 330 after point F) is obviously about
1/4th of turn 1 between C and D.

So, if turn 1 is 10 miles in diameter, turn 2 is 5 miles in
diameter. So?

doesn't it prove your basic arithmetic is not very good either?

NOw no, I thought we were going to keep it civilised.

you reckon a quarter of 10 = 5 ?

Dearie me! HOw remiss. 2.5, of course.

But still, rather moot without a scale, eh?

And why concentrate on an abvious basic brainslip than the addressing
the actual answers I was polite enough to give you?

well because in my opinion the rest of your so called answers are not
any better than your calculation of a quarter of 10.

Here's another chance:

also turning an aircraft in a steep dive has a danger of entering a
"graveyard spiral"

Not on a clear day, with an obvious horizon. I suggest you read up on
graveyard spirals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graveyard_spiral

well this account does not say its only on poor visibility, its to do
with your inner ear....

http://www.aero.ca/e_graveyard_spiral.html

Read it again - the inner ear only comes into play when you don't have
an outside horizon to look at (the article describes flight in IMC -
instrument conditions)

So, graveyard spirals aren't a factor then.
Once again, what was so difficult about the turn?



pulling out of the turn at the right angle and then dealing with
ground effect for last portion of approach sounds pretty trick to
me.

Ground effect would hardly have been a problem in a 400 mph dive..

true but he did a half mile pretty level flight supposedly knocking
down lamp posts etc.

At whcih point he wasn't in ground effect.

if you can knock down a 70 foot lamp post in a plane with wingspan of 125
feet, you are in ground effect. (OK computer control systems of 757
counter that somewhat...)

And did he indeeed knock down lamposts for a mile, at 70 feet?
What is the source of teh "70 feet" claim?
And does this take into acount that thelamposts may have beenon raised
pieces of road?
And what effect(!), exactly, will ground effect have on a 757 that
wodul have prevented Hanjour from hitting the Pentagon with it?






I'd say its pretty astonishing he got it right on first turn without
any beacon or ils...

But he didn't  that's why he had to do a 330 degree turn. Why would
he need a "beacon" or ILS on a perfectly clear day? How do you think
pilots managed to find and land on airfields beforeADFwas invented?

Well? I take it you've droped your "astonishing he got it right on first
turn without
any beacon or ils..." claim?

why should I fail to be amazed, when people at hanjours flight school
were themselves amazed he managed to do it....

Like his CFI who said there was no dount inhis mihnd that Hanjour
coudl have done it?

" Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a
pilot." and "There's no doubt in my mind that once that (hijacked jet)
got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit
it," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour)

Why are you running so hard from your "circumference" claim, by the
way?





http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B63

[quote]

Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet.
But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad
pilot.

"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the
Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."

Which "former empolyee" was that? The guy who trained Hanjour had no
doubts at all. And Hanjour DID have a CPL, after all..

What does this have to do with your "circumference" claims, by the
way?



[end quote]

admittedly it is not as amazing as no F16's turning up from bases 10
miles (Andrews <1 minute away) and 130 miles (edwards < 6 minutes away)
from Washington to intercept flight 77, known to have been AWOL for over
40 minutes, on a day 2 planes had already flown into US buildings with
devastating effect.....  

Or the fact that 2.3 trillion dollars was announced on TV by rumsfeld as
missing/unnacountable from the military budget the day before...

but anyway I've had enough of going round in circles

That woudl be you - have you forgotten your "circumference" claim?
I asked you about 50 posts ago what the circumference of Hanhour's
turn was - you stillhaven't answered.
Don't you think it's a bit stupid saying the circumference was too
little when you don't know what it was?

or shifting goalpost> spirals with you, don't harass me anymore please.-

Oh dear - you mean your abandoningyour claims that Hanjour's manouver
was somethuing "The red arrows woudl be proud of" or your various
unsupported assertions aboutthe "circumference" of the turn, and
running away?

I thought you wanted to discuss this rationally? Not merely hop to a
new unsubstantiated claim every time your previous claim is
demolished?

It's almost as if you don't have a clue what you're talking about..
.