Confessions of khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Oklahoma City, PanAm 800 and American 587

[Red_Sunset]

There  are many readers, here and elsewhere, who are grossly ignorant of structural engineering design principles, and so do not understand how intrinsically strong the exoskeleton of the twin towers was. The design of the twin towers was magnificently strong, and, in actual practice , highly over-designed.

Bad bolts? Rolling on the floor and busting a gut laughing!!!!
CANGAS 174

I am sure it was but I do not want to go that far,  I prefer to keep it a simple exercise,
The main point which I wanted to put across, do you rather abandon common sense and physics and believe the investigators with disbelieve.
Or you demand and hold the investigation to account for a higher integrity standard of work.

[Hoppy]

I am sure it was but I do not want to go that far,  I prefer to keep it a simple exercise,
The main point which I wanted to put across, do you rather abandon common sense and physics and believe the investigators with disbelieve.
Or you demand and hold the investigation to account for a higher integrity standard of work.

Its taking far to long for common sense to kick-in and an essential part of that is the need to hold the investigation to account.

[Pirate88179]

Bill,

There was only ONE ground take off in the X1 program.

Quote
"On January 5, 1949, Yeager used Aircraft #46-062 to perform the only conventional (runway) launch of the X-1 program,
attaining 23,000 ft (7,000 m) in 90 seconds."
End Quote

This was performed with the X1-1 aircraft. The X1-1 maximum speed was approx. 700 miles per hour (1,100 km/h) at ALTITUDE.
So this aircraft could not fly 1,000 mph as you say at any altitude. Now if Yeager did take off from the ground and climbed
to 23,000 ft in 90 seconds, then the rocket fuel would be used up. So on this flight he did NOT do any high speed low
altitude passes. And, there was only ONE ground take off in the X1 program.

GL.

It has been a while since I have read them, but I have all 3 of Yeager's books and I believe that Jack Ridley and maybe even Bob Hoover made ground take-offs in the X-1.  You guys are right, probably not 1,000 mph at that altitude but certainly faster than 350-400 mph.  Yeager said he held it on the deck after taking off and was surprised at how fast the speed built up before he pulled it up into a steep climb.
I was close on the X-1-1's top speed, 958mph and not 1,000mph like I thought.


A fast Google search reveals this:
Bell X-1Rocket plane
The Bell X-1, designated originally as XS-1, was a joint National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics-U.S. Army Air Forces-U.S. Air Force supersonic research project built by the Bell Aircraft Company. Wikipedia
Top speed: 958 mph (1,541 km/h)
First flight: January 19, 1946
Wingspan: 28' (8.50 m)
Length: 31' (9.42 m)
Weight: 7,000 lbs (3,175 kg)
Engine type: Reaction Motors XLR11
Manufacturer: Bell Aircraft


Bill

[SeaMonkey]

Clearly, neither are all those pilots who flew all those aircraft, fighters, airliners and sailplanes, in the low pass videos I posted and dozens, perhaps even hundreds more that are viewable on YouTube. They are all faked, aren't they. 

Are you going to claim that an F/A18A or F14 that _leaves a wake in the water_ as it flies past at 0.9 Mach isn't in ground effect? Or that a 25-meter wingspan sailplane, skimming the ground at 3 meters altitude at redline airspeed, isn't in ground effect?  If you are really the aviator you claim to be... I hope you flew for some other country than mine, because your training, skills and knowledge of this matter are clearly deficient. As are your observing skills. And we all know from your past posts how you like to misrepresent the facts.

You seem a bit confused TinK.  I have not claimed
to be an aviator on this forum.  Whether I am or not
is unimportant at this point.

The Military Aircraft airfoil design permits such low level
flight approaching or in excess of mach 1 if desired.

Commercial passenger aircraft, particularly when carrying
"passengers" are forbidden from such maneuvers or
even exceeding 250 Knots below a certain rather high
altitude.  There may be certain exceptions subject to
pre-approval for purposes of demonstration and/or
flight testing.

[CANGAS]

It has been a while since I have read them, but I have all 3 of Yeager's books and I believe that Jack Ridley and maybe even Bob Hoover made ground take-offs in the X-1.  You guys are right, probably not 1,000 mph at that altitude but certainly faster than 350-400 mph.  Yeager said he held it on the deck after taking off and was surprised at how fast the speed built up before he pulled it up into a steep climb.
I was close on the X-1-1's top speed, 958mph and not 1,000mph like I thought.


A fast Google search reveals this:
Bell X-1Rocket plane
The Bell X-1, designated originally as XS-1, was a joint National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics-U.S. Army Air Forces-U.S. Air Force supersonic research project built by the Bell Aircraft Company. Wikipedia
Top speed: 958 mph (1,541 km/h)
First flight: January 19, 1946
Wingspan: 28' (8.50 m)
Length: 31' (9.42 m)
Weight: 7,000 lbs (3,175 kg)
Engine type: Reaction Motors XLR11
Manufacturer: Bell Aircraft


Bill

Typical of the X-1 series was a loaded weight of a tad over 12,000 pounds while the standard 4 cylinder motor had a total thrust of 6,000 pounds. With thrust being only half its weight at rotation, the climb was not all THAT steep. 

Your vague semi quote was probably your poor memory of Yeager saying that immediately after an air drop, he held the X-1 down so he wouldn;t crash into the B-50 overhead. And near the end of the fuel burn, the aircraft weight would have been down close to 7,000 pounds. With a thrust of 6,000 pounds, it would have gone like hell and impressed him with the acceleration. Until the X-1 the best weight to thrust ratio he had experienced may have been an F-80 or F-84, with a ratio of much worse than the nearly 1:1 of a nearly burnt out X-1.

You originally blurted out "1'000 MPH at 10 feet off the deck". Now you are back pedaling and weaseling and trying to hide your tracks.


You make a sensational claim, YOU FURNISH QUOTES AND PROOF!! All you're furnishing are vague half-memories of what you might have read.

Your credibility has just crashed and burned. Like Yeager's 104. 


CANGAS 176