Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Funding sought to crash 747 into derelict building

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Funding sought to crash 747 into derelict building

Old 14th Jul 2016, 14:19
  #381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
Not to mention a ship is not a static target.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 15:51
  #382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
Statistics of the Kamikazes (1945) prove the contrary
A very little number of them (who was able to fly to their target) performed a hit
Wait.....what? Flying into a ship maneuvering at high speed, while simultaneously dodging the ship's fighter escort, and with literally hundreds of large caliber guns shooting tens of thousands of large caliber bullets at you from every direction around you is the same as flying a 757 into a building on a bright and peaceful morning? Really?
KenV is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 20:48
  #383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,996
Just to pile on a bit - I'm not a pilot, never have been, likely never will be. Never took any pilot training. However I do know how airplanes work - particularly Boeing airplanes.

About 20 years ago, I was with a pilot doing some testing in a Boeing 777 simulator. We finished up early and had some simulator time left. The pilot asked me if I'd like to fly the simulator - OF COURSE! So he set me up to do an approach and landing to the old Kai Tak Hong Kong airport - considered to be one of the trickiest major airports in the world at which to land.
Granted, I had some coaching from the Boeing pilot, and I doubt it was pretty, but I successfully landed the 777 simulator (without the automatics) at Kai Tak first try.

It's really not that hard - it's when things go wrong, at night when the weather sucks - that's when pilots earn their salary.

It' also makes me all the more critical of the Asiana crew that stuffed it at SFO - I mean I could have done a better job.
tdracer is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 22:06
  #384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 64
Posts: 1,809
Hi,

dodging the ship's fighter escort
You must learn more about history of the Kamikazes operations (I recommand read "Thunder Gods" from Hatsuho Naito ISBN 0-440-20498-4)
The fighters were in the first ring of defense far from the ships (40 to 60 miles)
The AA ships were in the second ring
When the Kamikase had past those 2 rings of defense ( a few go trought).. he was over the target .. and this target was not a fast moving target for a diving aircraft ( and they made some training before their last flight)
What I mean is from the ones who go trought .. very little number performed a direct hit .. many near miss

Last edited by jcjeant; 14th Jul 2016 at 22:18.
jcjeant is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 22:17
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,159
When the Kamikaze had past those 2 rings of defense .. he was over the target .. and this target was not a fast moving target for a diving aircraft
Oh, so all that AA fire coming from aircraft carriers and destroyers and other ships surrounding the carriers was just for show, just stuff you would see in the movies?
Turbine D is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2016, 00:43
  #386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,996
jc

If you think that a ship at combat speed is not a fast moving target, you might want to look at the history of torpedo bombers during WW II. Now, we're talking professional pilots, well trained at dropping torpedos to hit moving ships. In actual combat, with people shooting at them and the ships doing ~25 knots while making evasive maneuvers, very few got hits.
They did do rather well when going after ships at harbor however.
tdracer is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2016, 01:17
  #387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 140
Jcjeant, maybe it's time to quit while you're behind with this particular line of debate. The anti-aircraft fire didn't stop just because the kamikaze aircraft were getting close to their targets, there are some classic photos of kamikaze attacks that show the intensity of anti-aircraft fire - heres one taken from the USS Missouri.

The gunners kept firing right up until impact, as another famous photo demonstrates

And you can see from the wake visible in the second photo, the ship was moving fairly fast too. Many of the kamikaze aircraft may not have struck their targets, but the targets were aggressively manouevering while shooting back with every weapon available. And if one of those thousands upon thousands of bullets or shell fragments strikes the pilot, part of the aircraft that affects its controllability, or its explosive payload the aircraft will most likely miss, falling into the ocean or exploding mid-air. That doesnt mean a stationary and defenceless target is hard to hit, it shows the relative effectiveness of the kamikaze countermeasures in a war zone.
De_flieger is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2016, 02:50
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,621
Originally Posted by jcjeant View Post
Hi,

You must learn more about history of the Kamikazes operations (I recommand read "Thunder Gods" from Hatsuho Naito ISBN 0-440-20498-4)
The fighters were in the first ring of defense far from the ships (40 to 60 miles)
The AA ships were in the second ring
When the Kamikase had past those 2 rings of defense ( a few go trought).. he was over the target .. and this target was not a fast moving target for a diving aircraft ( and they made some training before their last flight)
What I mean is from the ones who go trought .. very little number performed a direct hit .. many near miss
jc, when in a hole, the best course of action is to quite digging. About the only two facts you have right are:
1. There were Kamikaze's
2. Not a lot of them got through and scored a hit. (Some did, though, on far more difficult targets than a building).

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 15th Jul 2016 at 04:36.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2016, 04:06
  #389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
Where do I begin?

You must learn more about history of the Kamikazes operations.....The fighters were in the first ring of defense far from the ships (40 to 60 miles)
Indeed, the Combat Air Patrol STARTED out that far out. But the CAP's fighters followed the kamikazes all the way to and often a ways into the defensive fire ring of the escort ships. If the kamikaze survived to that point he had to maneuver around the escort ships who were all shooting at him while searching for and trying to line up on the carrier or other heavy ship. AND the ships were all maneuvering madly. Japan lost about 4000 pilots and aircraft in kamikaze attacks. Far far more than they lost at Coral Sea, Midway and the Marianas "Turkey Shoot" combined.

Ever land on a carrier? I have. When the carrier's captain orders a rudder change to keep the wind over the deck in the correct direction and you're on final behind the ship, it ruins your whole approach. Landing on a fixed runway is relatively easy. Landing on a moving runway that is changing direction not so much. Now throw in the fact that there's a bazillion large caliber bullets headed your way. The difficulty factor goes up astronomically.

And despite all this kamikaze were so "ineffective" that they "only" managed to sink around 80 USN ships and seriously damage another 150 or so. I don't know how many naval ships of other nations (including Britain) were hit by kamikaze. And I don't remember if this statistic is correct or not, but if memory serves, USN suffered more deaths than USMC in the final stages of the war largely due to the kamikaze. They didn't affect the outcome of the war and despite the very effective defenses against them, kamikazes caused a LOT of damage and killed a LOT of people.
KenV is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2016, 11:47
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 44
Posts: 443
tdracer

I always enjoy reading your posts. Just like you I have never been a pilot. When I was young I was waaaay too poor for private education and my eyesight is so bad the army didn't want me.

It is amazing that it takes so little to steer a plane into something. The fact you managed to land at Kai Tak is a testament to that. I have only watched YT clips but it looks... hmm.. majestic.. :-) Must be a great design from your part. :-)
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2016, 12:45
  #391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,284
From "very easy" to "difficult enough to require basic aptitude plus years of training, education and practice". Things towards the top of the list could probably be achieved by my grandmother, without prior training (even though she's been dead for decades). Things towards the bottom of the list will require a skilled and experienced pilot.

1. Guiding an aeroplane into the ground.
2. Guiding an aeroplane into the ground in a specific place.
3. Guiding an aeroplane into a specific place on the ground, travelling in a specific direction.
4. As above, but arriving at the specific place with a specific airspeed
5. As above plus a specific vertical speed
6. As above plus a specific heading (in a crosswind)
7. As above plus being alive after arrival
8. As above plus being able to use the aeroplane again after arrival
9. As above on instruments
10. As above plus in stormy weather
11. As above plus technical failures on the aeroplane

Now I've presented it as a linear progression for simplicity, when actually there are permutations that make it more of a "tree-branching" relationship, but you get the idea.

Now I would suggest 1-3 could almost certainly be achieved by anyone, probably with no training or at most a couple of hours playing on MS Flight Sim or similar. 4-5 could probably be achieved by someone at basic PPL standard if you were a little generous in the tolerance on the speed numbers. 7&8 could possibly be done with a PPL who had been given some simulator time on a large transport type, but we're really talking CPL/IR/ATPL standard. 9-11 are the realm of fully experienced ATPL with type rating and lots of hours on the specific type.

Having listed that out I would happily defer to any ATPLs who disagree - I'm an engineer and lapsed PPL, so I'm not claiming any guru status.

So to return to the matter at hand, I would suggest that flying airliners into the WTC towers and the pentagon would be level 3 on that list, which is stuff anyone can do.

€0.05 supplied,

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2016, 13:58
  #392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,550
PDR1, you forgot probably the most difficult.

landing on an aircraft carrier, at night, weather at minimums, deck rolling and heaving to its limits.
megan is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2016, 14:45
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,284
True, but while it's been done with a C130 I don't recall anyone suggesting trying it in a 757 or 767.

Actually there's a much, much harder one that no male pilot has ever achieved - commenting on his wife's weight increase and living to tell the tale...

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 09:45
  #394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 44
Posts: 443
Just found a great great picture of thermal expansion nowhere near a disaster area. This is what happens when steel is heated due to regular sunshine.



Picture is from Poland/Czech/Slovakia... hard to tell from the reg plates.
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 10:43
  #395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 76
Posts: 452
KenV - the British carriers at Okinawa that were struck by kamikaze suffered little damage as unlike the US carriers the British ships had armoured decks. It was usually just a case of pushing the wreckage over the side. Some years ago I saw a photograph taken by a British sailor of the side of a carrier that had been struck - there was the outline of a single engined aircraft with a 3 bladed prop and fixed gear printed on the hull.
bcgallacher is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 12:26
  #396 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 76
Posts: 1,863
Originally Posted by MrSnuggles View Post
Just found a great great picture of thermal expansion nowhere near a disaster area. This is what happens when steel is heated due to regular sunshine.



Picture is from Poland/Czech/Slovakia... hard to tell from the reg plates.
Šťastný asfalt s.r.0. Bronzová 2018117, Praha 5 155 00 ... tel: 608227882 e-mail: stastný[email protected]
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 13:02
  #397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 64
Posts: 4
That is what happens when the temperature ranges from -40°C in the Winter to +40°C in the Summer.
G0ULI is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 17:09
  #398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 64
Posts: 1,809
Hi,

Just found a great great picture of thermal expansion nowhere near a disaster area
That is what happens when the temperature ranges from -40°C in the Winter to +40°C in the Summer.
Can you explain why the left rail does not have the deformation of the right one ?
jcjeant is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 17:28
  #399 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 76
Posts: 1,863
Railway lines used to have expansion gaps to allow for changes in length during hot weather, (remember diddly dah diddly dah?), then it was discovered that the expansion could be stopped if the rail was securely held, so current rails are much much longer with no gaps for expansion.

WRT the tram rails, it is likely that one rail was securely anchored whist the twisted rail had come loose and was allowed to expand.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 18:12
  #400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
KenV - the British carriers at Okinawa that were struck by kamikaze suffered little damage as unlike the US carriers the British ships had armoured decks. It was usually just a case of pushing the wreckage over the side. Some years ago I saw a photograph taken by a British sailor of the side of a carrier that had been struck - there was the outline of a single engined aircraft with a 3 bladed prop and fixed gear printed on the hull.
That depends on your definition of "little damage". The armored flight decks of British carriers were much more resistant to damage, but because the flight decks were primary structure, damage beyond a certain point was not considered economically repairable and the ship was written off rather than repaired. HMS Formidable for example was not repaired and scrapped after the war.

The flight decks of US WW2 aircraft carriers were "superstructure" or in aviation terms, secondary structure and not primary structure. As a consequence, even the severely damaged Bunker Hill was repaired and brought back into service. The other advantage to having a flight deck that is superstructure and not primary structure and a hangar deck that is the primary strength deck is that it provided much greater aircraft capacity. The US carriers in WW2 could embark far more aircraft than their British counterparts even though the US carriers had less displacement.

But the bottom line is there's no free lunch. Every design has its advantages and disadvantages. USN philosophy was that carriers were primarily an offensive weapon with its primary weapon being the embarked aircraft and so chose a design that maximized aircraft capacity and enabled repair of even severely damaged flight decks. RN had a different philosophy and designed their carriers accordingly. The downside of the USN philosophy was that bomb hits would cause greater damage and greater casualties. The down side of the RN philosophy was that aircraft capacity was reduced and if the armored flight deck was breached, the resulting damage was to primary structure and may not be economically repairable.

The differing design philosophies was driven largely by differing tactical requirements. RN had to operate in the Med and North Sea where the carriers were routinely within range of land based aircraft. USN and IJN did not have that requirement and consequently had similar design philosophies different from RN's. USN's carriers also had the benefit of RN experience with their carriers in wartime. RN freely shared their technologies and their combat experience with USN which was another reason for the different design philosophy behind the USN carriers. The experience of both USN and RN carriers in the Pacific war resulted in the USN's new Midway class having an armored flight deck even though the flight deck was superstructure. Forrestal and subsequent were the first US carriers where the flight deck was the primary structure and the main strength deck of the vessel.
KenV is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.