Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by Reheat
No, flaps do not increase the total lift component. The camber of the wing is changed and in some cases the plan-form area of the wing is also changed. This changes the stall speed of the wing. It allows the wing to produce the same amount of total lift at a slower speed, but flaps themselves do not produce lift, they merely help to modify the total lift component. It is a rather complex issue and one easily misunderstood by neophyte pilots. I've noticed that some articles on the Web also confuse the issue, as well.

What does this have to do with fighter versus transport flying at low level?

So you're arguing from semantics? I think we know the flaps do not create lift by themselves. But as you say they change the shape of the wing so it DOES create more lift, the wing shape with the flaps extracted creates more pressure under the wing and less over it.

You are just trying to argue around admitting that flap use create more lift.

Edit; 2 second search...

Flaps are used to increase and maintain lift at slower speeds.

Flaps are used to increase and maintain lift at slower speeds.

Flaps are used to increase and maintain lift at slower speeds.

Need to see that again?

www.pilotfriend.com...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Reheat
An incorrect statement. It is more correct that flaps simply change the lift vector to allow an aircraft to fly slower without stalling. They don't produce lift.

LOL how do you think they do that? Yes they do create lift mate, in fact older slower fighters would use their flaps all the time to climb, or help the a/c stay level during a hard turn (which causes the nose to drop losing altitude)

That's only half of the story. Flaps allow the aircraft produce the same amount of lift at a slower airspeed. Flaps to climb, eh? In that flaps also produce drag, why would they do that? You are very confused. Yes, the older fighters did use flaps in turns, but not for the reasons you state. They did it to tighten their radius of turn due to allowing a slower speed without stalling.

Well, mr. aeronautics expert, please explain in detail what this has to do with flying at low level. Pssst = zilch But, let's hear what you have to say anyway. Or you'll ignore it and show that you have NO CLUE what you're talking about.....

edit on 15-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Huh LIFT, do I have to say it again? Passenger and cargo planes have high lift wings because they are designed for one thing, to carry a lot of weight, not do aerobatics. Fighters are small and light and do not need as much lift from their wings, smaller thinner wings allows them to fly faster, and lower, and do aerobatics.

Finally, you get something right. This has what to do with flying at low level? Zilch....that's what.

Notice I managed to do that without a throwing an insult at you.

Einstein.

Oops sry lol.

And with that you may FO.

reply to post by Reheat

Flaps allow the aircraft produce the same amount of lift at a slower airspeed.

And they would conversely create MORE lift at the same speed..
Not sure why you are arguing the point..Flaps create more lift, period....

reply to post by Reheat

Finally, you get something right. This has what to do with flying at low level? Zilch....that's what.

My question would be,
How much lift would be created by a 757 flying at 500mph and what would the pilot need to do to counteract the lift?
At that speed and with ground level atmosphere creating lift, how would he stop it from climbing.??

reply to post by backinblack


I think he's arguing about this because he can't argue about the evidence at the Pentagon.

Originally posted by Reheat
Flaps to climb, eh? In that flaps also produce drag, why would they do that? You are very confused.

Actually during WWII dogfights that was a common tactic. Yes it increases drag but sometime speed has to be sacrificed to avoid the enemy.

You don't know as much as you think you do.

Well, mr. aeronautics expert, please explain in detail what this has to do with flying at low level. Pssst = zilch But, let's hear what you have to say anyway. Or you'll ignore it and show that you have NO CLUE what you're talking about.....

edit on 15-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Finally, you get something right. This has what to do with flying at low level? Zilch....that's what.

The lower you fly the more dense the air is, and the more lift, and drag, you get at a given speed. Passenger planes are designed to fly at their max speed at cruising altitude, 35,000 ft., where the air is thin and 500 mph does not create the same lift as it does at sea level. The plane will also be trimmed.

Why does a passenger plane lift off the ground and climb so easily at 160 mph? Because that is enough speed to create the lift needed with hardly any pull back on the stick, with FLAPS to help that lift. Now imagine 500mph, with flaps deployed, at sea level trying to counter that lift being created? You probably can't.

Quite saying zilch, you know zilch.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

How's the exit hole look?

Like this?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2918c5ecf577.jpg[/atsimg]

If 40 million joules (an estimate of the energy of the Empire state impact) and 1.4 billion joules (an estimate of the energy of the Pentagon impact) are equal, it might look that way. But they don't seem to be equal to me.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Have you ever seen the damage of that many joules colliding with a reinforced concrete structure to compare it with?

Is there an easier explanation for the damage rather than shuffling your feet, bowing your head and muttering something under your breath about pressure waves and confetti debris, and "NOT REINFORCED" walls, and Joules, and a forest of columns, and imaginary wind gusts under imaginary wings? Anything?

Like maybe a freaking rapid wall breaching kit?

reply to post by Reheat


If you were flying at 200mph, and deployed the flaps, you would start to climb, period. Until the climb becomes to steep for your speed, at which point you can retract the flaps maintain speed at new higher altitude. Another WWII fighter tactic for quick altitude change.

Didn't want to give way to much of my geekness lol, but being an on line IL2 fighter ace for many years, and a 'squadron' staff member of high ranking, I studied WWII fighter tactics and practiced them, often.

reply to post by ANOK


But I don't think flaps were used by the 757 that hit the pentagon..

But I'd still like an expert to tell me how hard it was to hold the plane level at that speed and altitude..

Lift is proportionate to air density, 3 times higher at GL compared to cruise height..
Lift is increased by V squared..500mph would create a lot of lift...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

Finally, you get something right. This has what to do with flying at low level? Zilch....that's what.

My question would be,
How much lift would be created by a 757 flying at 500mph and what would the pilot need to do to counteract the lift?
At that speed and with ground level atmosphere creating lift, how would he stop it from climbing.??

The distance to the ground at the altitudes AA 77 was flying has absolutely nothing at all to do with lift. As weedwhacker stated earlier air is air, period. An increase in speed would result in more lift if the angle of attack were allowed to increase. Obviously, to maintain level flight forward pressure on the controls using the elevator to counter that tendency for the AOA to increase would be required. That is known as flying as opposed to driving.

Again, what does ground level atmosphere have to do with lift. Obviously, the air density is higher at lower levels (below about 18,000') but not appreciably different at the levels AA 77 was operating at during it's flight near the Pentagon.

reply to post by Reheat

Again, what does ground level atmosphere have to do with lift. Obviously, the air density is higher at lower levels (below about 18,000') but not appreciably different at the levels AA 77 was operating at during it's flight near the Pentagon.

What??
The lift created would have been triple that created at cruise altitude..
Why do you keep inferring nothing seems to affect lift??

reply to post by Reheat

An increase in speed would result in more lift if the angle of attack were allowed to increase.

This is also BS..
If the angle of attack is constant and you increase velocity then lift is increased by V squared..
Quite a difference..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

Again, what does ground level atmosphere have to do with lift. Obviously, the air density is higher at lower levels (below about 18,000') but not appreciably different at the levels AA 77 was operating at during it's flight near the Pentagon.

What??
The lift created would have been triple that created at cruise altitude..
Why do you keep inferring nothing seems to affect lift??

Read what I said again and see if you understand it the second time. Pilots did not think about lift at all. They fly to achieve whatever they want to achieve by manipulating the controls to do that. Whomever was flying AA 77 was obviously trained as a pilot, but it is obvious from examining the FDR Data that he was very poor. That is quite evidence from the time the autopilot was disengaged until the end of that data.

If you want to continue this discussion tomorrow you need to get off your obsession with lift. It merely indicates you do not know what you're talking about. Aircraft don't suddenly descend from less dense air to higher density air, Alien spacecraft do that but not air breathing machines currently originating from the earth. it is a gradual process easily adjusted to if you have any clue about flying at all.

Great job!

reply to post by Reheat

If you want to continue this discussion tomorrow you need to get off your obsession with lift. It merely indicates you do not know what you're talking about. Aircraft don't suddenly descend from less dense air to higher density air, Alien spacecraft do that but not air breathing machines currently originating from the earth. it is a gradual process easily adjusted to if you have any clue about flying at all.

Mate, it was you that kept the lift debate going with ridiculous comments..

Yes, the affect is gradual but it is shown he was flying quite erratic while at higher altitudes..
Suddenly he gets low to the ground and is steady as a rock ??

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

An increase in speed would result in more lift if the angle of attack were allowed to increase.

This is also BS..
If the angle of attack is constant and you increase velocity then lift is increased by V squared..
Quite a difference..

You're only half right. I should have said pitch attitude as opposed to AOA. Lift is a function of both speed and AOA and I was obviously thinking of pitch as opposed to AOA. Pilots don't think about AOA particularly as pitch is what primarily controls the direction of the aircraft.

reply to post by Reheat


Hello ReHeat,

Is that handle a reference to the jet engine afterburner on the equipment you have experience operating?


I seem to recall one of the questions on the commercial instrument ticket asked the primary purpose of flaps.

The answer the FAA wanted was to allow the aircraft to descend without accelerating. In the case under

discussion the flight configuaration seems to have been gear up, flaps up. This would be consistant with the

indicated air speed increase on the NTSB report derived from the recovered on board recorder.


No special skill would be required to steer the plane into a building, the folks who say it did not happen because it

would be to difficult to accomplish are mistaken.


As we talked about earlier there would be some noticable pressure from the air flow back pressure in the short time

the aircraft was wings level below 100 feet but that would be easily overcome with forward control pressure.


I can not imagine how anyone could be so deranged as to do this, but this certainly could be done with a novice skill

level.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

If you want to continue this discussion tomorrow you need to get off your obsession with lift. It merely indicates you do not know what you're talking about. Aircraft don't suddenly descend from less dense air to higher density air, Alien spacecraft do that but not air breathing machines currently originating from the earth. it is a gradual process easily adjusted to if you have any clue about flying at all.

Mate, it was you that kept the lift debate going with ridiculous comments..

Yes, the affect is gradual but it is shown he was flying quite erratic while at higher altitudes..
Suddenly he gets low to the ground and is steady as a rock ??

edit on 16-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

You must be looking at different data than I've reviewed. The high altitude cruise portion was done on Auto-Pilot, so if the flying was erratic blame it on the autopilot. There were two very distinct periods of a PIO as the speed increased and the wings were rocking during the final moments as verified by several witnesses. You may call that rock solid, I call it erratic.....

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

An increase in speed would result in more lift if the angle of attack were allowed to increase.

This is also BS..
If the angle of attack is constant and you increase velocity then lift is increased by V squared..
Quite a difference..

You're only half right. I should have said pitch attitude as opposed to AOA. Lift is a function of both speed and AOA and I was obviously thinking of pitch as opposed to AOA. Pilots don't think about AOA particularly as pitch is what primarily controls the direction of the aircraft.

I'm not half right, I'm 100% right...
You seem to know what you are talking about but why are you saying silly things??