holy crap! New 9/11 photos

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by 944turb0, Jun 21, 2007.

  1. #1 944turb0, Jun 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  2. I'd believe his assertion of the ability required to make the maneuver more if he had come even close to getting the type of plane right.
  3. Shutup. All you do is #%!@ and moan and you're worng most the time anyways. Ugh.
  4. But I'm not this time, so STFU.
  6. Get my car out of your avatar.
  7. That must of been a scary as hell IRL
  8. You must be confused. Dumb n00bs.
  9. For some reason I get the feeling a lot of people who are familiar with aircraft, but not the specific planes get confused between what a 757 or 767 normally does in flight, and what it's capable of at the limit. It doesn't take a professional racing driver to drift a 3 series or a taxi round a corner, you never see it day to day though.
  11. Wha...what!
  12. there were terrorists, they hijacked some planes, they flew them into some buildings


    it wasnt missles
    it wasnt George Bush
    and it sure as #$%# wasnt aliens

    the only thing that MAY have been covered up was the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. i have a feeling that it was shot down since it happened considerably later then the WTC and the pentagon, which gave the AF enough time to realize what was going on, find it, and shoot it down
  13. Indeed. Because of the sheer quantity of people moved by their products every hour/day/year, Boeing and Airbus both have huge factors of safety. 150-160% expected maximum loads and what not.
  14. You're like a crazie on the other end. I jsut posted pictures and you're like STOP WITH THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!!!!!
  15. First factors of safety around 1.5-1.6 are not huge at all in engineering terms. Even then only some things on the aircraft are really that high, alot is below 1.5.
  16. Regardless, would you agree the planes are more capable than people believe them to be?
  17. The author of the photos says he doesn�t believe at all that this maneur could be done by some rookie who just graduated from �Florida Flight School�. According to his opinion it was some very experienced millitary pilot making his last kamikaze mission.
  18. I was mostly clarifying that a safety factor of 1.5 is actually really small in most cases, the car you drive has much higher safety factors.

    Yes, they are more capable than most people think.
  19. Commercial aircraft are typically 1.25-1.5, depending on the part, which is pretty much the smallest safety ratio widely used anywhere in the world. Cars are designed for at least 2, skyscrapers are 2-2.5.
  20. I'd assume this is because it is unlikely that a commercial plane will ever get that close to the edges of its performance envelope. Even in pretty extreme weather, how often to airliners perform multiple-G maneuvers versus how often people will take a corner too fast in their car or do a drop-clutch start or whatnot.
  23. There are many reasons why aircraft can get away with much lower factors of safety.

    One reason is that the materials are to much stricter standards. Material properties have statistical variances and aerospace materials have much less variance.

    Another is inspection, basically all the materials used are inspected for cracks and other flaws.

    The loads are still designed for maximum loads, similar to dropping the clutch. Those loads are taken into consideration, but fatigue tends to dominate failure modes, not ultimate loads. Extreme maneuvers are taken into consideration.

    More redundant systems, how many cars have two engines.

    Lots of other things too, but that is all of this I can think of.
  24. #25 944turb0, Jun 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016

Share This Page