Where's the Plane..???

[The Moan Ranger]

I am starting to believe this was a very well executed abduction with the flight crew involved.  And forget all that bollocks you might read about the plane needing a 5000ft runway to land - I've seen them do it in half that if they've needed to.  Curiouser and curiouser...

[apc2010]

I am starting to believe this was a very well executed abduction with the flight crew involved.  And forget all that bollocks you might read about the plane needing a 5000ft runway to land - I've seen them do it in half that if they've needed to.  Curiouser and curiouser...

A pilot on another forum agrees with you too....but he thinks he screwed up the landing ....

[Marley's Ghost (Imbiber of Spirits)]

I have some grave misgivings here - we know the muzzies would dearly like to destroy Uncle Sam and, since 9/11 would have serious difficulty getting to repeat it or anything similar.

Now, given that any plane getting near a city would, in all probability get shot down before it could do any damage, what would be the scenario if a nucular(sic) device were on said plane?

Shoot it down and it goes (very big) bang. So long New York . . . .

They reckon that the info to make a nuke are available via the interweb - all thay need is some fissionable material . . .

I really hope I'm wrong . . . . .

[Barman]

I am starting to believe this was a very well executed abduction with the flight crew involved.  And forget all that bollocks you might read about the plane needing a 5000ft runway to land - I've seen them do it in half that if they've needed to.  Curiouser and curiouser...

Runway length is dependent on a number of factors - largely load but also altitude and wind speed....

I can't help but think that even with all the fuel burnt (do we know how much cargo was being carried?) you are still looking at a very long paved runway and favourable winds to be able to get it down and (presumably) re-sue it again without major maintenance...

Plus of course, the aforementioned mile-long runway would need to be somewhere that nobody would notice a treble-seven landing and that had no mobile phone coverage (unless all the passengers had been murdered during the flight).....

[The Moan Ranger]

5000 feet is mentioned as it is the way for planes to land and still abide by noise restrictions in built up areas.  On full brakes and reverse thrust these things can land in an incredibly short distance.  Wind direction is irrelevant to an extent as you would just go around and make sure you were heading into the wind if would make that much of a difference. 

[Barman]

5000 feet is mentioned as it is the way for planes to land and still abide by noise restrictions in built up areas.  On full brakes and reverse thrust these things can land in an incredibly short distance.  Wind direction is irrelevant to an extent as you would just go around and make sure you were heading into the wind if would make that much of a difference.

Well....

The runway can obviously only offer approaches in two directions - commonly 25/07.... so for the minimum landing the wind would have to be from one of those two - any crosswind component would make a significant difference....as would temperature, load, a wet runway, etc.

[apc2010]

Is David Copperfield still alive......

[Baldy]

Is David Copperfield still alive......

 

[Barman]

Is David Copperfield still alive......

 

[Steve]

Is David Copperfield still alive......

 

[apc2010]

Now they now where it went down ....it should be plane sailing,,,,,,,,

[Nick]

Are the passengers blowing their little whistles? 

[Barman]

[Steve]

 

Not for the joke but the sodding ear worm I now have   

[Barman]

Not for the joke but the sodding ear worm I now have   

 

Me too....