It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Internatiomnal space station actually within an ordinairy airplane..

page: 15
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

They were under control until the aircraft broke up. They pulled out of one dive and entered a second where they broke apart at low altitude. One pilot was pushing forward, the other pulling back, which is why the elevators split like that.

As for the A300, everything I've said applies to it as well, except it has a lower thrust to weight ratio, at 0.30. It's still rated for 2.5Gs, still pulled 1.8 at the start and end of the arc.




posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




Any strengthening done would be to allow it to carry extra monitoring equipment, and to the engine mounts, although it wouldn't be required.


But the plane is already mostly stripped of the normal interior so why would it need reinforcement to carry some equipment.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




They were under control until the aircraft broke up. They pulled out of one dive and entered a second where they broke apart at low altitude


So what you said earlier,



During the extended dive prior to breaking up, Egypt Air 990 was estimated to have reached mach 0.99 or so.


is quite the misrepresentation, since it obviously survived that dive.




Also, that plane was flying at cruising speed before it entered that dive, an A300 during parabolic flights would not be when the dive is initiated.
edit on 20-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Because equipment racks are heavier than seats. A lot heavier. They also take up less room, so the weight is more concentrated than a row of seats.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Can you post a source that says it was reinforced specifically for heavy equipment racks?
edit on 20-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

It survived the first dive, but suffered damage because of it. The FDR and CVR stopped recording at 01:50:36.64 and 01:50:38.47. At 01:58:38 Air Force radar showed the aircraft climbing to 25,000 feet, and turning, then beginning a second dive, and suffered an on board explosion and broke up and then impacted the water.

There are only so many ways to stop them recording. Damage is the most likely cause. The aircraft exceeded the mach 0.86 never exceed speed during the dive. Pulling up from that would cause an over G, and cause structural damage.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

The modification to the aircraft was to the doors, adding equipment rails for securing experiments, and other modifications along those lines. There's a PDF that talks about the maximum experiment size, how to secure them and other things along those lines, but I'm on my phone and can't link it because it downloads instead of opening.
edit on 2/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I don't know where you are getting your information, the NTSB says this,


While the NTSB's report did not determine a specific reason for the relief first officer's alleged actions, their report stated the impact was "a result of the relief first officer's flight control inputs".[1][4] Supporting its deliberate-act conclusion, the NTSB report determined that no mechanical failure scenario could result in aircraft movements that matched those recorded by the flight data recorder (FDR), and that even had any of the failure scenarios put forward by the Egyptian authorities occurred, the aircraft would still have been recoverable because of the 767's redundant elevator control system.



The accident airplane's nose-down movements did not result from a failure in the elevator control system or any other airplane failure.

2. The accident airplane's movements during the initial part of the accident sequence were the result of the relief first officerís manipulation of the controls.

3. The accident airplane's movements after the command captain returned to the cockpit were the result of both pilots inputs, including opposing elevator inputs where the relief first officer continued to command nose-down and the captain commanded nose-up elevator movements.


Wiki


They are clearly saying it survived the initial dive completely intact.

Nothing about the plane undergoing too many g's in the dive.
edit on 20-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

The dive itself wasn't the problem. The aircraft didn't over G in the dive, it was an over speed. The over G came when they pulled out of the dive and climbed back to 25,000. Wiki leaves out a few details, such as the climb. I never said the aircraft didn't survive the Gs. The initial point I was making with the reference was that if a zero g flight stays in a dive too long they risk an over speed of the aircraft, as happened with 990.

As for the Gs, the last recorded speed of 990 was mach 0.94. The estimated Gs at pull out of the dive were at least 3-4, possibly 5 or higher. That is going to damage a commercial aircraft. It probably wouldn't cause a crash, but it certainly damaged the aircraft structurally.
edit on 2/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




The dive itself wasn't the problem. The aircraft didn't over G in the dive, it was an over speed. The over G came when they pulled out of the dive and climbed back to 25,000.


Yes, i know what you meant, I mistakenly refered to it as the dive.




Wiki leaves out a few details, such as the climb. I never said the aircraft didn't survive the Gs. The initial point I was making with the reference was that if a zero g flight stays in a dive too long they risk an over speed of the aircraft, as happened with 990.


So can you share your source? I don't see anything that supports what you are saying.




As for the Gs, the last recorded speed of 990 was mach 0.94. The estimated Gs at pull out of the dive were at least 3-4, possibly 5 or higher. That is going to damage a commercial aircraft. It probably wouldn't cause a crash, but it certainly damaged the aircraft structurally.


No it did not because of overspeed and pulling out of that initial dive, the plane survived that just fine. I don't see anything about FDR and CVR being cut off due to damage at the point, like you claimed.

Eventually in the second dive, one engine and some minor parts broke off just before impact with the ocean, and this is because the plane became under too much stress because the pilots were pushing and pulling controls in opposite directions.


Conclusion, this proves that a plane can recover from such a dive with no problem at all. And a plane doing parabolic flights would have a lower in initial speed going into the dive.

These show what actually happened.







edit on 21-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

The opposite control input didn't overstress the aircraft. In that case the aircraft is going to continue what it was doing and dive.

Just how many Gs do you think the aircraft was going to suffer pulling out of a dive at near mach 1? Of course it suffered an over G. So what's your reasoning for the recorders shutting down? They just stopped working on their own?

Read the FDR data. Prior to it cutting off they were pulling pretty continuous 2.5+ Gs. They were already at the G limit of the aircraft prior to pulling out of the dive. When they pulled out of the dive they would have had to pull much more than that. Experts all agree that the aircraft suffered significant structural damage as a result. It wasn't included in the NTSB report because they can't prove what was caused by the over G and what by impact.

No one has claimed aircraft can't survive pulling out of a dive. But an aircraft in an extended dive is going to accelerate, even with the engines at idle, and risk both an over speed and over G condition, even at a lower initial speed. The zero G aircraft are already near the acceptable limit in the short dives that they do as it is. Extending that dive would risk going over it, which would require a tear down inspection of the aircraft after every flight, meaning it wouldn't be available for another flight until it was done.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




Just how many Gs do you think the aircraft was going to suffer pulling out of a dive at near mach 1? Of course it suffered an over G. So what's your reasoning for the recorders shutting down? They just stopped working on their own?


They stopped working when the plane hit the water. I already asked you where you got the notion that they stopped working before that.




Read the FDR data. Prior to it cutting off they were pulling pretty continuous 2.5+ Gs. They were already at the G limit of the aircraft prior to pulling out of the dive. When they pulled out of the dive they would have had to pull much more than that. Experts all agree that the aircraft suffered significant structural damage as a result. It wasn't included in the NTSB report because they can't prove what was caused by the over G and what by impact.


Read it where? It is seems like you are only posting your own interpretations. Why don't you post a source that backs up what you are saying.




No one has claimed aircraft can't survive pulling out of a dive.


You claimed that the plane suffered damage pulling out of that initial dive, and said that the FDR and CVR stopped recording due to damage occuring at that moment. I don't see this being mentioned anywhere. Can you back this up?

Why do you ignore half of what I posted?

Any comment on the video for instance? Does it show what you are saying?



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

The NTSB report clearly states that the aircraft pulled out of the dive, and the recorders stopped working prior to that. The radar data from the Air Force clearly shows the aircraft climb to 25,000 feet, and make an almost 80 degree turn after The recorders stopped recording. I haven't linked it because as I said, it doesn't link on my phone.

The CVR stopped recording at 01:50:36 and the FDR at 01:50:38. The aircraft impacted the water at 01:52. At 01:50:38 radar data showed the aircraft stop its descent and climb to 25,000 feet, turning from 080 to 140 in the process. It subsequently started another dive and impacted the water at 01:52.


No secondary radar returns were received from EgyptAir flight 990 after 0150:36
(about the time the CVR and FDR stopped recording); however, after this time, several
radar sites recorded primary radar returns that continued along the accident airplaneís
extended flightpath from its last recorded radar position. As previously discussed, these
primary radar data (with extrapolated FDR data and simulation results) indicated that after
the airplaneís FDR and CVR stopped recording, the airplane descended to an altitude of
about 16,000 feet msl, then climbed to about 25,000 feet msl and changed heading from
80º to 140º before it began its second descent, which continued until it impacted the
ocean.61

www.ntsb.gov › Reports › AAB0201

The aircraft suffered an over G situation, at the exact moment the FDR stopped, but I suppose it was just coincidence.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief




I already asked you where you got the notion that they stopped working before that.


The NTSB.


Between 0150:31 and 0150:37, the captain repeatedly stated, ìPull with me.î
However, the FDR data indicated that the elevator surfaces remained in a split condition
(with the left surface commanding nose up and the right surface commanding nose down)
until the FDR and CVR stopped recording at 0150:36.64 and 0150:38.47, respectively.


www.ntsb.gov...

And here is a nice little video about it. In fact at the 12:26 mark they are talking about the first dive and the fact that the FDR quit working 2 minutes before they crash, not when it hit the water.





You claimed that the plane suffered damage pulling out of that initial dive, and said that the FDR and CVR stopped recording due to damage occuring at that moment. I don't see this being mentioned anywhere. Can you back this up?


Look above.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Thanks for posting that source.




Look above.


Indeed, this source does in fact say that they stopped recording before impact, so I concede that, however, Zaphod claimed that this was caused by damage caused by pulling out of that initial dive. As I pointed out several times before, aswell as asked for his sources, this is simply not supported by any evidence and seems something that is just made up.

This source actually says that this is not the case at all.



The results of the Safety Boardís exam ination of CVR, FDR, radar, airplane maintenance history, wreckage, trajectory study, and debris field information werenot consistent with any portion of the airplane (including any part of the longitudinal flight controls) separating throughout the initial dive and subsequent climb to about 25,000 feet mean sea level (msl). It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located in the western debris fiein the western debris field about 1,200 feet
from the eastern debris field. Although no radar or FDR data indicated exactly when (at what altitude) the separation occurred, on the basis of aerodynamic evidence and the proximity of the two debris fields, it is apparent that the airplane remained intact until sometime during its final descent.



It also gives this as the reason why they stopped working,


. As previously discussed, the cessation of the CVR recording at 0150:38.47 (shortly after the FDR recorded the airplaneís loss of engine power) was consistent with the loss of electrical power to the recorder that occurred after the engines were shut off


Nothing to do with damage at all.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

They don't have to separate to stop working. And loss of engine power doesn't necessarily stop them recording either if the battery is switched on at the time, or the APU is running. The recorders didn't stop working for between 7-10 seconds after the first officer said the engines were shut, and over 20 seconds after the engine switches were moved from the run position to cutoff. What, they had enough power to keep working that long?



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Whatever Zaphod, the NTSB clearly says the plane was completely intact until somewhere in that final dive. It survived the initial dive and pull out just fine.

There is no mention whatsoever about it suffering any damage at that point. whatever you say now is just your own interpretation that is not supported by anything. I'll take the NTSB over your opinion.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




The aircraft suffered an over G situation, at the exact moment the FDR stopped, but I suppose it was just coincidence.


How can this even stop the recorders, without even damaging the plane?



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

You do realize that you can damage the aircraft without tearing pieces off, right? The structure could have suffered damage that cut power to the recorders. Damaged doesn't mean things fell off right then and there.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Oh right, I forgot that if something suffers damage that means it had to fall apart. The NTSB isn't going to put non-factual data in the report, so they're not going to speculate in it.

But of course, you're right. It's impossible to damage something and it remain intact.

And if you read the report it wasn't completely intact at impact. The left engine and pieces of wing separated prior to impact.
edit on 2/21/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join