That's one extremely fast moving, low-flying passenger plane to be able to strike a building like that and especially to completely destroy itself without any traces of plane left from the wreckage.
Yeah, with the landing gear extended and when the plane has slowed, in a shallow descent over a long distance (at least for passenger planes.)
If this plane was descended too early then it would have run the risk of colliding with objects close to the ground. If the plane was going slowly it would have left a lot more debris and the collision wouldn't have been nearly as destructive. If the plane hit the ground it may have destroyed the plane before hitting the building.
There's a lot of reasons why this manoeuvre isn't the same thing as just landing a plane on an airstrip.
the plane slows, because the point is to get the plane on the ground safely. when you are doing a terrorism, you're not concerned about such things, and can go very fast.
This is easier than landing on a strip. Reaching a specific point in space is a much looser constraint than reaching that same point with the correct velocity and acceleration to make a landing feasible beyond that point. There are way more unique trajectories (flying straight down into the point, approaching off-normal from the building face, sideways, upside down, relatively level, even skipping off the ground) that satisfy the first constraint that would not satisfy the second constraint.
Don't forget that the plane crumpled in on itself to form a sphere before touching the Pentagon's facade. It's wings folded inward as a defense mechanism to mitigate collateral damage.
That's one extremely fast moving, low-flying passenger plane to be able to strike a building like that and especially to completely destroy itself without any traces of plane left from the wreckage.
It must have been one hell of a bullseye.
planes land every day
Yeah, with the landing gear extended and when the plane has slowed, in a shallow descent over a long distance (at least for passenger planes.)
If this plane was descended too early then it would have run the risk of colliding with objects close to the ground. If the plane was going slowly it would have left a lot more debris and the collision wouldn't have been nearly as destructive. If the plane hit the ground it may have destroyed the plane before hitting the building.
There's a lot of reasons why this manoeuvre isn't the same thing as just landing a plane on an airstrip.
the plane slows, because the point is to get the plane on the ground safely. when you are doing a terrorism, you're not concerned about such things, and can go very fast.
This is easier than landing on a strip. Reaching a specific point in space is a much looser constraint than reaching that same point with the correct velocity and acceleration to make a landing feasible beyond that point. There are way more unique trajectories (flying straight down into the point, approaching off-normal from the building face, sideways, upside down, relatively level, even skipping off the ground) that satisfy the first constraint that would not satisfy the second constraint.
At an estimated 850 km/h there is very little margin for error with regards to these unique trajectories however.
I agree, safely landing at 850 kph sounds tough
Ground effect would help: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_(aerodynamics)
Don't forget that the plane crumpled in on itself to form a sphere before touching the Pentagon's facade. It's wings folded inward as a defense mechanism to mitigate collateral damage.
Flight simulator really pays for itself