Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Yet ANOTHER 'tale' about Flight 587...

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Yet ANOTHER 'tale' about Flight 587...

    The fed/gov is saying Flight 587 took off LESS than 2 minutes after the Jap 747 flight...SUPPOSEDLY resulting in Flight 587 passing through severe turbulance...enough to rip its wing and tail off. Riiiiight.

    BUT....earlier this week, it was reported by the FAA that Flight 587 took off 2 minutes and 47 seconds after the Jap flight.....WELL after the minimum 2 minutes required by the FAA.

    Which is correct?

    Heck...my 5th graders can come up with better tales.......
    "When you guys get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a *****."
    -Commanding General, 1st Marine Division

  • #2
    We wont know what happened. I personally lean toward tampering, but could be wrong. Wake turbulence, according to experts, and the time after take off, would not have caused the problem.

    Comment


    • #3
      Another breaking story on CNN concerning this, is that the rubber band powering the engine snapped, causing the engine to fail catastrophically.

      Also circulating, is a theory about the invisible string that holds the planes in the air may have broke.

      Comment


      • #4
        Man, I'm so gullible...I almost believed the rubber band snapping on the endine snapping on the engin til I read further! lol

        Comment


        • #5
          Look, I just flew from Detroit to Ft. Myers, but they sent my luggage (3 bags and a brand new carseat still in the original box) to Tampa. If they can't even handle luggage properly, I don't know how they can get the more difficult things right.

          Oh yeah, and when they finally delivered my luggage (nice of them to at least deliver it to me), the box the carseat had been in was gone, missing, nowhere to be found. I'm just glad they don't have the baggage handlers flying the planes

          Comment


          • #6
            Wake turbulence can, has, and will again do exactly what the NTSB says it did. Any pilot can verify that. The 747 is a huge plane. It shouldn't be any surprise how much turbulence they generate.
            Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan

            I don't think It'll happen in the US because we don't trust our government. We are a country of skeptics, raised by skeptics, founded by skeptics. - Amaroq

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by vbrenner:
              Wake turbulence can, has, and will again do exactly what the NTSB says it did. Any pilot can verify that. The 747 is a huge plane. It shouldn't be any surprise how much turbulence they generate.
              True, but we're talking about an A300, which is a widebody heavy itself. As strong as wake vortices are, the NTSB said that the plane didn't encounter more than +2.5 G's. Those G forces shouldn't be enough to snap the vertical stabilizer off of the plane. Also, since the vorticies descend and dissapate at a rate of about 500 feet per minute, I find it hard to believe that they could have done so much damage to a plane that was so far behind and below it. Yes, wake turbulence can cause accidents, but structural failure should NOT occur from exposure to only 2.5 G's.

              [ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: PatrickM98 ]

              Comment


              • #8
                My husband is a retired AF pilot who has flown both fighters and the B52, in fact he has flown a fighter in the wake turbulence of the B52 many times. He feels the same as Patrick, wake turbulence would not cause that kind of damage to an aircraft.

                [ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Pnutt ]
                Illegitimus non carborundus!

                Comment


                • #9
                  What then, happens to an aircraft receiving fuel from a larger, heaver aircraft in-flight?

                  Wouldn't wake turbulance be a factor there?

                  Jim Burnes

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Jim,

                    The closer you are to the aircraft the less wake turbulence there is. If you're not behind the wing tips, you're not going to get it.

                    Btw, my husband hated flying the B 52, he said it was like sitting on your porch flying your house. Typical fighter pilot!

                    [ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Pnutt ]
                    Illegitimus non carborundus!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Please advise your husband, that I and many others love the B-52 and all the iron it carried!

                      Jim Burnes
                      Viet Nam 1966 and 1968


                      PS: Where those planes went, blessed silence followed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Jim,

                        Some of the pilots flying the B52s over Vietnam in 66-68 were our friends and neighbors. Our squadron looked after their wives and children while they were gone, we were one big happy family.

                        My husband said to tell you it's not the B52 you love, but the iron that goes boom when it hits the ground.

                        He flew them out of Fairchild AFB in Spokane, Wn. for two years and I had to put up with the growling every time he'd come home from a flight. B52 pilots have to fly by the book, fighter pilots use brains, skill, and cunning. Just ask 'em!!!!


                        Da Nang, 68-69
                        I Corps

                        [ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Pnutt ]
                        Illegitimus non carborundus!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Pnutt:
                          Jim,

                          , fighter pilots use brains, skill, and cunning. Just ask 'em!!!!


                          Da Nang, 68-69
                          I Corps

                          [ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Pnutt ]

                          A few times, I myself saw how those fighters would stay with us, even though their ord was expended. They just kept making treetop runs which made the other guys take cover!

                          That kind of aggresive action would give us time to hightail it outta there


                          Jim Burnes
                          Expert Hightailer

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Jim Burnes, Expert Hightailer,

                            Glad you made it back ok, and that our fighters could be of assistance to all you ground troops.

                            A security guard saved my husband's life when a Viet Cong left a fire bomb under his trailer. I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the Military Police.

                            Constance
                            Expert Military Wife

                            [ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Pnutt ]
                            Illegitimus non carborundus!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Jim,

                              Hope you don't mind me asking but by chance were you in the 2/7, 1st Cav in Vietnam? Just wondered if Rick Rescorla was the army buddy you lost in the WTC?
                              Just read a news story about him, and had read of him in Larry Gwin's book "Baptism". He sounds like quite a man.

                              Here's a pic of Rick http://www.lzxray.com/18.htm

                              [ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: grum ]
                              Graeme

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 3727 users online. 243 members and 3484 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X