Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
757 Performance Specifications  
User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5366 posts, RR: 53
Posted (2 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 6579 times:

So on another forum that I'm a member of, there's a discussion going on with a rather stubborn 9/11 "truther" type that believes UA flight 93 was shot down. A few statements made by this individual:

1) 757's dont jerk back and forth in quick, violent jerky motions. They are too large to do that. It isn't physically possible. This isn't a 2 man passenger craft we are talking about here.

The only metaphor is that a 757 handles in the air like a tank does on the ground. Its movements are very slow. Its turning radius is very large. And jerking the controls wont jerk the entire plane like you suggest.


2) I agree that is definitely possible. And for more probable for a crash landing scenario than the plane hitting in tact. It explains away a lot of the inconsistencies.

I still lean towards it being shot down though. It just makes the most sense given all the variables.

Edit: For the record, we don't even know how far it is physically possible for a plane that size to roll.

The slowness with the roll isn't because you do it carefully to avoid damage to the plane, it is because it is not physically possible to do it fast in a plane so large.


3) I find all 3 quite improbable.

Scenario 1 doesn't make sense. He'd just fly it straight into the ground. Unless he actually thought he could do a barrel roll in a 757 in some james bond like attempt to knock unconscious the attacker by dropping them on their heads. But with such a slow maneuver in a plane that large, you'd think he'd realize after 30 seconds and only tilting the jet 30 degrees that this plan wouldn't work.

Scenario 2 is improbable because a 757 doing a roll at 550+ mph is like a tank taking a 90 degree turn on a dime at 100mph. A plane that large rolling would take such a long time. I just dont see the controls being accidentally manipulated in a consistent manner for that long of a period of time during a fight. As for them being damaged, they had box cutters and fists. The controls of an aircraft are pretty sturdy. It isn't like guns were going off in there.

Scenario 3. Yeah. Unless Sarah Palin took over the controls, I don't see anyone stupid enough doing that. When a plane is going down, you pull up. You don't try to execute a barrel roll as you plummet towards the ground.

I still think scenario 4 makes the most sense.

The plane lost and engine and portion of a wing midair.


4) Planes don't accidentally barrel roll. Especially massive commercial airliners like a 757. The only way drastic maneuvers are taken is if they are forced that way by the controls. If you are flying a 757 and let go of the controls, you would barely notice a difference unless you forced the controls into a maneuver.

And a barrel roll is a complicated maneuver. Even for a small aircraft. I'm not even sold that it is physically possible for a 757. And if it is, it certainly cannot be easy and would take a lot of deliberate effort (ie forcing the controls).


Discussion in the thread begins in earnest at http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1198219&page=7

I'd love for any of our more technically knowledgeable members to let me know just how much hot air this guy is blowing. Thanks!


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9511 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 6578 times:

Well he is somewhat correct that a 757 is not a 2 person plane and that it is much smoother, but a 757 is not like a flying tank.

However I don’t think he really knows what the 757 is capable of with full flight control inputs. The 757 is a mechanically cable driven aircraft. It does not have roll rate protection like Fly By Wire airplanes have. If you put 55 degrees of control wheel input, the ailerons will deflect to 21 degrees. If you go beyond that and hit the control wheel stops at 82.5 degrees, you get spoiler deployment as well. At high speed low altitude conditions, that much aileron input is going to put the airplane into a severe roll.

In reality no pilot would ever put those roll commands into the airplane. A modern jetliner flies smoothly because pilots put very little control input in. High speed and high input will slam the 757 around. It has extremely large ailerons.

If you have someone at the controls who is panicked and not knowing what they are doing, you can get a 757 into an upset attitude and crash it. The pilots flying on 9/11 only had basic pilot skills on the 757. They knew how to turn the transponders off, basic PA communication and basic control of the airplanes, but they were not skilled pilots. They flew the airplanes outside of the normal envelope. Flying a mechanically driven airplane like the 757 is not as easy as it is shown in the movies where a flight attendant can do it. They are very stable and predictable in their flight envelope, but outside of that, if a pilot is putting full control inputs in while at high speed, it is absolutely possible that they could roll the plane right into the ground.

Don't forget that there was a pilot who got a 737 inverted and at a 145 degree angle just by rotating the rudder trim (while thinking it was the door unlock). So while a 757 won't be like a James Bond movie throwing someone to the ground, when you get into high speed roll inputs combined with elevator inputs, the airplane is hardly smooth.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 6543 times:

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Thread starter):
The only metaphor is that a 757 handles in the air like a tank does on the ground.

The B757 is much more like a luxury sports sedan than a tank. It has very good control response.

Another reminder - a B707 can be put through a barrel roll. I personally would not want to try it - but I'm absolutely sure a B757 could be rolled, rather easily, if the pilot tried.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 1):
The pilots flying on 9/11 only had basic pilot skills on the 757.

The guys flying UA 93 would barely have been able to initiate such maneuvers in a small aerobatic aircraft if they tried. They simply didn't have the experience or training.

That is more the key to any 'unusual' movements of the aircraft. They were barely in control of the aircraft, and when attacked by the passengers, the control movements became rapid and sharp. The aircraft responded.

One final point - your 'friend' won't agree - but the US government has NEVER been that good at keeping secrets.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 6482 times:

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Thread starter):
I'd love for any of our more technically knowledgeable members to let me know just how much hot air this guy is blowing.

A lot. We should hook him to a power plant.

For starters, airliners have very high roll rates at full deflection. The FBW ones are electronically limited and, even then, they can do about 30 degrees per second. Non-FBW aircraft can easily double that.

Airliners do jerk around in the sky; as previously posted, airliners are smooth because the pilots are smooth. If you slam the controls the airplane will get slammed. It's called a "kick" and is used during flutter testing all the time. It's extremely obvious when you do it.

And finally, all airliners (that don't have FBW stopping them) can do a barrel roll. It's a 1g maneuver. Done properly, the airplane doesn't even "see" it.

Tom.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3477 posts, RR: 67
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 6437 times:

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Thread starter):
Edit: For the record, we don't even know how far it is physically possible for a plane that size to roll.

The slowness with the roll isn't because you do it carefully to avoid damage to the plane, it is because it is not physically possible to do it fast in a plane so large.

To quantify some of these questions, I often participated in 757 certification flight testing.

During one stall recovery, we experienced a 70 deg bank angle.

During a handling qualities demonstrations, roll rates in excess of 60 deg per second were demonstrated.

Navy pilots flew the 757 when it was being considered as a long range patrol bomber. They were of the opinion that could hold its own in a dog fight.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Thread starter):
Even for a small aircraft. I'm not even sold that it is physically possible for a 757. And if it is, it certainly cannot be easy and would take a lot of deliberate effort (ie forcing the controls).

During the early '50's, a Boeing test pilot did a barrel roll in the 367-80 (fore-runner to the 707) over the hydroplane races in Seattle. The -80 did fly like a tank compared to the sports car handling of the 757. In the hands of an equally skilled pilot, the 757 would have no problem performing a barrel roll.

In short, your friend is not well informed on 757 handling characteristics.

[Edited 2012-06-01 15:50:43]


Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1067 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 6421 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 2):
One final point - your 'friend' won't agree - but the US government has NEVER been that good at keeping secrets.

Conspiracy theories, fall flat on their faces when facts are introduced... As someone who has lived in the "secret world" before... It is my experience that if more then 2 people know about it? It's Not a secret!  



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30632 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6328 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Didn't the test pilot of the French prototype Concorde barrel roll it?

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6305 times:

"Thanks" for making me skim through that thread. It makes me happy for the reasoned discussion among people who live in the real world we have here on a.nut...


Quoting garnetpalmetto (Thread starter):
And a barrel roll is a complicated maneuver. Even for a small aircraft. I'm not even sold that it is physically possible for a 757. And if it is, it certainly cannot be easy and would take a lot of deliberate effort (ie forcing the controls).

As others have mentioned, a barrel roll is, as aerobatic maneuvers go, neither complex nor particularly difficult.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 2):
One final point - your 'friend' won't agree - but the US government has NEVER been that good at keeping secrets.

Word. Except for those aliens at Roswell of course.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Thread starter):
I'd love for any of our more technically knowledgeable members to let me know just how much hot air this guy is blowing.

A lot. We should hook him to a power plant.

              

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
Airliners do jerk around in the sky; as previously posted, airliners are smooth because the pilots are smooth. If you slam the controls the airplane will get slammed. It's called a "kick" and is used during flutter testing all the time. It's extremely obvious when you do it.

I had a demonstration recently. On climbout from SGN our 330 went from take-off power to climb power with a hell of a jolt. The whole plane shook and reverberated. I was looking at the left wing and it was flapping all over the place for a second or so. I can only conclude that the pilot flying decreased throttle a mite less gently than he should have. So yes, planes can jerk...

[Edited 2012-06-01 21:34:53]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4384 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6297 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 4):


Navy pilots flew the 757 when it was being considered as a long range patrol bomber. They were of the opinion that could hold its own in a dog fight.

With what, a B52 ?!


I have to call Bs on this one


Seriously, if they said that they must have been pulling your leg !



I have flown the 757 and 767 for fifteen years and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt they are hardly 'dogfighters'




Good responsive Aircraft, yes (more so the 767 actually) but nothing beyond that.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6189 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 8):
With what, a B52 ?!

An IL-38, or Tu-95 - the aircraft into which a long range patrol aircraft would be most likely engaged against. Though the possibility of going up against a long ranger fighter does exist. The goal isn't to dogfight and shoot down the enemy aircraft, but to be able to evade enough to survive.

Our EC-121's on occasion had to try to avoid fighter aircraft. One did, one did not. One of our EP-3E aircraft survived a mid-air collision with a fighter.

But the point is moot because rather than the B757, the Navy decided on the P-8A - a version of the B737.

I assume the B757 is more nimble than the B737, simply based on power of the engines.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3477 posts, RR: 67
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6173 times:

[quote=Max Q,reply=8]Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 4):

Navy pilots flew the 757 when it was being considered as a long range patrol bomber. They were of the opinion that could hold its own in a dog fight.
With what, a B52 ?!


I have to call Bs on this one


Seriously, if they said that they must have been pulling your leg ![/quote

Then you've never seen the P-3's armed with Sidewinders?

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...=0&qpvt=P-3+Sidewinder&FORM=IDFRIR

Also this article.

http://www.p3orion.nl/sneaky.html

Navy pilots will dogfight with any airplane they fly. The 757 would fly rings around a P-3, the airplane they would have been replacing.

And don't be so quick to dismiss the B-52. At its design attack altitudes and weights, it could turn inside a Mig-17. Low wing loading does have it's advantages. There was a reason that the B-52 had a tail gun.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6132 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 10):
Navy pilots will dogfight with any airplane they fly.

A pilot will always "dance with who they brung". They have little choice.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 8):
I have flown the 757 and 767 for fifteen years and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt they are hardly 'dogfighters'

Dogfight may not have been the best choice of words, but...

As far as large transport aircraft are concerned, you could do much worse than a 757: no artificial limits on control authority and a better power to weight ratio than other comparable aircraft. Certainly compared to other maritime patrols, the 757 would have fared pretty well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYZOB...lU&feature=player_detailpage#t=11s


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4384 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5921 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 10):
Then you've never seen the P-3's armed with Sidewinders?

You could put Sidewinders on a DC3, so what ?

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 10):




Navy pilots will dogfight with any airplane they fly. The 757 would fly rings around a P-3, the airplane they would have been replacing.

Since we are continuing to discuss the ridiculous, why would you assume that anyway ?


Although, your statement (unintentionally) is probably true, a 757 would fly large rings around a P3, not being able to fly nearly as slow and turn as tightly.

Quoting CM (Reply 11):
A pilot will always "dance with who they brung". They have little choice.

What does this even mean ?

Quoting CM (Reply 11):


As far as large transport aircraft are concerned, you could do much worse than a 757: no artificial limits on control authority and a better power to weight ratio than other comparable aircraft. Certainly compared to other maritime patrols, the 757 would have fared pretty well.

Not sure how many hours you have actually flying a 757 but in terms of handling you can do a lot better, the 767, is far more responsive, as was the B727.



A dogfighting 757 ! only on A. net...

[Edited 2012-06-02 22:00:13]


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5770 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
A dogfighting 757 ! only on A. net...

And the US Navy. But let's not let reality get in the way of the discussion.

Tom.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9511 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5704 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
Not sure how many hours you have actually flying a 757 but in terms of handling you can do a lot better, the 767, is far more responsive, as was the B727.

With both ailerons the 767 is more manuverable but am not sure about high speed when the outboard aileron is locked out. As you would know as a pilot the 757/767 are more capable of erratic flight maneuvers than most other planes. The a320 a330 a340 777 and 787 all have roll rate limitations. I think that was his point. I think he was only talking roll rate too since as far as I know there are not pitch rate limitations.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5705 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
What does this even mean ?

It means it does not matter whether you are in a P-3, or an MR2 Nimrod, (or a 757, for the sake of this discussion), if these aircraft are engaged by an enemy aircraft, the pilot has no choice but to meet that engagement in the aircraft they are flying in.

Aircraft such as the Nimrod have at times been outfitted with offensive air-to-air armament, so the underlying premise that no maritime patrol aircraft would ever be involved in an air-to-air combat is simply wrong.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5589 times:

Going back to the original point. While a 757 might not be able to out-turn an F-16, it can certainly move in an erratic and jerky fashion.

A 757 can also pull way more Gs than pax are likely to experience. If memory serves, a 330 can pull 2.5G positive and 1G negative before needing an inspection. I imagine a 757 would be similar. With typical 50% margin, this means it will withstand at least 3.75G positive and 1.5G negative.

As for roll, the 747-100 can, with gear down and full flap go from 30 degree roll to one side all the way to 30 degree roll to the other side without using rudder in 4.8 seconds*. This includes the time to accelerate into the roll from a stable fixed angle. Note again this is with gear and full flaps. That's a way larger aicraft than a 757.

Bottom line, airliners can maneuver way more nimbly than the flying public imagines. They aren't flown this way because airlines don't like their pax puking all over the place and soiling their pants with fear.



* "Source: Handling the Big Jets" - Davies



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5578 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
They aren't flown this way because airlines don't like their pax puking all over the place and soiling their pants with fear.

Thanks for the compelling visual! 


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4384 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5349 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 13):

And the US Navy. But let's not let reality get in the way of the discussion.

Don't you have a single engine ferry to do Tom ? !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5329 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 18):
Don't you have a single engine ferry to do Tom ? !

Interestingly, single engine take-offs on a two engine aircraft are mentioned as having been done in "Handling the Big Jets" by Davies, a very respected book in the industry. Davies does refer to them as "circus tricks" but still.

  



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5138 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
A 757 can also pull way more Gs than pax are likely to experience. If memory serves, a 330 can pull 2.5G positive and 1G negative before needing an inspection. I imagine a 757 would be similar. With typical 50% margin, this means it will withstand at least 3.75G positive and 1.5G negative.

Don't forget the g-limits are all at relatively high weight...if you're light you go higher (same absolute force, higher g).

Tom.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3477 posts, RR: 67
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4986 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 20):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
A 757 can also pull way more Gs than pax are likely to experience. If memory serves, a 330 can pull 2.5G positive and 1G negative before needing an inspection. I imagine a 757 would be similar. With typical 50% margin, this means it will withstand at least 3.75G positive and 1.5G negative.

Don't forget the g-limits are all at relatively high weight...if you're light you go higher (same absolute force, higher g).

Tom.

Also depends on how the load is distributed. Low ZFW with Empty Center Tank and Full Main Tanks gives you even more potential capability.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4384 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4859 times:

I stand corrected, apparently the new 'Top Gun' movie will have Maverick in the left seat of a 757 (no replacement for Goose yet)



There are some gripping action scenes 'turning and burning' with Tupolev's and Ilyushin's.



As he say's: 'you can't think up there, if you think you're dead'



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6389 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4682 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
A 757 can also pull way more Gs than pax are likely to experience. If memory serves, a 330 can pull 2.5G positive and 1G negative before needing an inspection. I imagine a 757 would be similar. With typical 50% margin, this means it will withstand at least 3.75G positive and 1.5G negative.

Indeed the 757 is similar, or rather identical.

2.5G + 50% = 3.75G is "ultimate load" which any airliner wing has to withstand during a static test for certification. Those +50% is a safety margin which also shall compensate for "aging", such as beginning corrosion, minor fatigue cracks, a few loose rivets, and production irregularities etc. No airliner shall ever exceed 2.5G in ops, or it shall be inspected.

Example: 22 January 2002 a 757 experienced an unstabilized approach into OSL due to pilot error. It was put into an 49 deg. dive, then pulled up (leveling off at 321 ft. radio altitude!!!) to a 40 deg. climb while experiencing a G load of 3.59 - and an overspeed. It was put through a C-check, and a special "overload inspection".

From the report:
In February 2002, after the incident, the aircraft went through a C-check. When Boeing became aware of the seriousness of the incident, the company requested [the airline co.] to perform a very extensive structural inspection on the airplane. The inspection was focused on the fuselage, wings, empennage and the engine strut connection. The inspection asked to look for distortion, flaked paint, cracks, and buckled structure and for fasteners that have pulled out or “are not there”. The inspection was very detailed, and required many of the inspection tasks that already had been accomplished during the above-mentioned C-check. The Boeing Company sent a wing structure engineer specialist to assist with determining possible damage, and to determine if further inspection would be required. It turned out that a re-inspection of the parts that had been inspected during the C-check was not necessary. As a result of this, the extent of the inspection decreased. It was apparent that the airplane’s structure had not been damaged. As a precaution, the following parts were exchanged:

1. Six fuse bolts in the engine strut connection
2. The forward bolts on the flap track to wing connection
3. The two bolts that run through the two main rollers, on each flap track.


It was pretty lightweight, only 75 pax and normal fuel for landing. That helped a lot. But in any case, exceed 2.5G, and you are in great trouble after handing in your FDR data.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4384 posts, RR: 19
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4661 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 23):

From the report:
In February 2002, after the incident, the aircraft went through a C-check. When Boeing became aware of the seriousness of the incident, the company requested [the airline co.] to perform a very extensive structural inspection on the airplane. The inspection was focused on the fuselage, wings, empennage and the engine strut connection. The inspection asked to look for distortion, flaked paint, cracks, and buckled structure and for fasteners that have pulled out or “are not there”. The inspection was very detailed, and required many of the inspection tasks that already had been accomplished during the above-mentioned C-check. The Boeing Company sent a wing structure engineer specialist to assist with determining possible damage, and to determine if further inspection would be required. It turned out that a re-inspection of the parts that had been inspected during the C-check was not necessary. As a result of this, the extent of the inspection decreased. It was apparent that the airplane’s structure had not been damaged. As a precaution, the following parts were exchanged:

Impressive, but typical for Boeing and all the more reason why we should start a rapid and unprecedented replacement of all front line jet fighters with 757's.



Think of the savings, not to mention the publicity for Boeing..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
25 Post contains links Starlionblue : The report on the incident is fascinating reading. After the botched approach, overstressed aircraft and possible instrument malfunction on approach,
26 legs : One of the more impressive airshow displays I've ever seen was an RNZAF 757 at the Avalon Airshow several years ago. I can only guess bank angles and
27 Max Q : It was an impressive display but meaningless really. So he made a high speed pass and a very steep climb out, you could do the same with a lightweigh
28 CM : You've changed the argument a bit I'd say. You are the only one arguing about the 757 being a fighter. In fact, no one on this thread has brought up
29 Max Q : I have been attempting (in vain apparently) with logic and my own brand of humour to point out what a ridiculous concept a 'dogfighting 757' is in an
30 CM : You're still changing the argument. No one claimed the 757 was the most responsive airframe out there. What was claimed is the 757 is a very agile ai
31 tdscanuck : That's fine, but why are you calling BS on it on a.net...shouldn't you be calling BS with the Navy? Don't blame CM for something that someone else sa
32 Max Q : Er Tom, this is a discussion forum, thats why.
33 Max Q : If you cannot see how real experience operating an Aircraft has relevance to a discussion on it's maneuverability your credibility is in serious doub
34 tdscanuck : Real experience operating an airliner in line service won't come anywhere close to hitting the maneuverability limits unless you've done something ve
35 CM : I know with 100% certainty you have never flown the 757 anywhere near the limits of it's aerodynamic performance. Your ticket and your employer both
36 Max Q : What complete nonsense Tom. You are now claiming that a person that knows the published limits of an Aircraft by reading about them has more authorit
37 XaraB : Not reading about; *designing*. There's a slight difference in knowledge level between the two. Note that the *entire purpose* of an extensive test r
38 Max Q : So what ? Both of these 'plane testers' and 'plane designers' have no actual experience flying their 'product' as actual Pilots. But, as you say, the
39 XaraB : Way to miss the point... Which of the following statements are true? 1. I drive a Toyota Prius, and I know way better than Toyota what the car is cap
40 tdscanuck : Not exactly. I'm claiming that people who designed and executed the flight maneuvers that gave you the published limits have more authority on those
41 Max Q : Fact is real experience counts. While this fact may be troubling to some of you it is extremely valuable in real life. When Pilots are hired to work f
42 XaraB : No doubt about that. Within the normal operating envelope. Possibly; again within the normal operating envelope. Do you think that it was coincidence
43 tdscanuck : Let's lay our cards on the table here. Do you know what your airplane will do with a full step wheel input? Full step rudder? Full step column? At a
44 Post contains images CM : Interesting. The handling qualities you have learned about through experience are the deliberate product of a design. This includes handling qualitie
45 bond007 : Yep, real experience of test flying airliners counts, of which I assume you have none. If this was a thread about flying an airliner from MIA to PHL,
46 Max Q : With a full Aileron input the Aircraft will roll until I stop it by rolling in the opposite direction. With a full Rudder input the Aircraft will yaw
47 CM : I hinted at this above, but I'll spell it out more clearly. Aircraft are certified via engineering analysis. Testing (including flight testing) is do
48 Max Q : I agree, the engineering analysis is enormously important. The flight test program should validate the design and this analysis. My point was and is
49 tdscanuck : That was exactly the point. I do know the precise numbers (and the qualitative look and feel of all of them when you actually do it). No line pilot d
50 garnetpalmetto : Cheers everyone and apologies for inadvertently starting any knockdown/drag-out fights with my question! I figured the 757 was much more responsive th
51 tdscanuck : Sorry for taking the thread down a bunny trail; your summary is entirely correct. All airliners are significantly more responsive than the guy you we
52 tdscanuck : Well, this thread has gone sadly off the rails. I have to appologize, as I certainly had a hand in that. Back to the OP...did you get any response whe
53 wilco737 : Sorry, but this thread is going way too far off topic and will be locked now.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
757 Runway Performance posted Tue Sep 7 2004 22:49:07 by Airways45
A Testament To 757 Climb Performance posted Thu Apr 17 2003 00:13:01 by Rick767
77W Self Dispatch Performance Data posted Tue May 8 2012 13:07:48 by tom355uk
Command Selection-Seniority Or Past Performance posted Tue Apr 24 2012 07:32:45 by B-HOP
Uniteds 757 Video Monitors posted Wed Apr 18 2012 14:33:51 by B777UA
Eurocontrol Aircraft Performance Database posted Fri Mar 30 2012 15:34:34 by A342
757 LOW Pass Over Runway, Cockpit Video posted Fri Feb 17 2012 09:14:17 by readytotaxi
757-200 Climb Profile posted Tue Jan 24 2012 10:52:11 by BAe146QT
Costs To Lease A 757-200 For 12 Months? posted Fri Nov 4 2011 21:54:24 by JMM99
Performance Difference Between A340 Models? posted Mon Oct 31 2011 16:47:30 by bristolflyer