Design load limit?? I never said anything about design load limit, I said the speed of the plane exceeded by three hundred miles its maximum velocity beyond which it breaks up.
That you cannot distinguish between a plane's load and a plane's speed leads me to doubt that have any idea what you are commenting on. Go away.
I said the speed of the plane exceeded by three hundred miles its maximum velocity beyond which it breaks up.
Except that is not what that number means. It is the number beyond which the structural integrity of the plane cannot be guaranteed. Whether that means it breaks up immediately, begins to suffer structural failure, begins to have uncontrolled vibrations, is less certain, because the planes aren't flown beyond those values to find out.
I also don't think you're even using the right number for the given situation.
That you cannot distinguish between a plane's load and a plane's speed leads me to doubt that have any idea what you are commenting on.
This is literally my field. I have literally calculated these same numbers in designing my own UAVs. I know how they are obtained and what they mean and you very obviously do not.
Particularly since the VMO of a 767 is 360 knots, which is 414 mph, and this is the airspeed number, so the relative velocity of the plane to the air through which it is moving, and not the groundspeed number, which was recorded to be ~586 mph on the day. But for the sake of argument, 586 mph is 141% of the VMO of 414 mph, and airplanes are designed with factors of safety of 1.5, so by all accounts this is within the capacity of the plane when you disregard factors of safety. Additionally, as my video shows, the wing only failed at 154% of its design load limit. So the limits as defined by engineers are not absolute hard limits anyways, just that normal usage should be constrained by them.
The speed is secondary - what determines the physical limits of the Boeing 767 is Mach number and dynamic pressure.
510 kts at 400 m in standard atmospheric conditions equals Mach 0.775. This is well within the limits of the Boeing 767. But at 400 m it produces a dynamic pressure of 40,567 N/m², and that is too much. The maximum dive speed vD of the 767 is 420 kts.
This only means that flying at 510 kts is illegal, but it is still possible. If the airplane dove down to those 400m from enough altitude, it would entirely be capable to reach this speed, but would slow down once it stops diving.
There are several effects which can cause a catastrophic failure when flying too fast:
When the aircraft flies into a gust, the resulting load factor can overstress the structure.
When the pilot commands large control inputs, he will also overstress the structure.
Flutter might also cause structural damage.
The maximum Mach number of the 767 is 0.91 (0.05 above the maximum cruise Mach number, which is 0.86), and this corresponds to 523 kts in 11,000 m. Thankfully, certification requirements demand a margin of 20% between the maximum speeds and flutter onset speeds, so flutter might be close, but is still tens of miles per hour away when diving to 510 kts. Remember, to experience flutter you need also to excite the motion first. Here is a good discussion of this topic.
In short, flying a Boeing 767 in 400 m at 510 kts is not recommended, but is entirely possible and most likely even safe when done in calm air and by a calm pilot. It only won't last long, because the engines will not produce enough thrust to maintain that speed. Flying this dive requires guts, but no special skills.
You are literally telling straight up lies. It can absolutely fly faster than 200 mph, and regardless it was DIVING and leveled out and then hit.
Design load limit?? I never said anything about design load limit, I said the speed of the plane exceeded by three hundred miles its maximum velocity beyond which it breaks up.
That you cannot distinguish between a plane's load and a plane's speed leads me to doubt that have any idea what you are commenting on. Go away.
Except that is not what that number means. It is the number beyond which the structural integrity of the plane cannot be guaranteed. Whether that means it breaks up immediately, begins to suffer structural failure, begins to have uncontrolled vibrations, is less certain, because the planes aren't flown beyond those values to find out.
I also don't think you're even using the right number for the given situation.
This is literally my field. I have literally calculated these same numbers in designing my own UAVs. I know how they are obtained and what they mean and you very obviously do not.
Particularly since the VMO of a 767 is 360 knots, which is 414 mph, and this is the airspeed number, so the relative velocity of the plane to the air through which it is moving, and not the groundspeed number, which was recorded to be ~586 mph on the day. But for the sake of argument, 586 mph is 141% of the VMO of 414 mph, and airplanes are designed with factors of safety of 1.5, so by all accounts this is within the capacity of the plane when you disregard factors of safety. Additionally, as my video shows, the wing only failed at 154% of its design load limit. So the limits as defined by engineers are not absolute hard limits anyways, just that normal usage should be constrained by them.
Your field???? THE PLANE WAS FLYING AT SEA LEVEL, AT APPROXIMATELY 1300 FEET.
You cannot fly a plane at sea level at a speed about 200 mph, it will break up. And this CGI image was traveling at 589 mph.
Go away.
You are literally telling straight up lies. It can absolutely fly faster than 200 mph, and regardless it was DIVING and leveled out and then hit.
Of course it can fly faster than 200mph at 30,000 FEET which is what the info you posted is for.
It would break apart at 589mph at 1300 feet which is what the video shows.
But "The Twin Towers differed slightly in height, with one standing 1,368 feet tall and the other rising only to 1,362 feet tall."