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.
rayjoh : No. The wings bending up depends on the total weight of the airplane.
Not the air density or airplane speed. The bending depends also on how many G the airplane pulls up, not if it is done at cruise level or sea level.
During the test, the wings on the 787 were flexed upward “approximately 25 feet” which equates to 150 percent of the most extreme forces the airplane is ever expected to encounter during normal operation. The test is used to demonstrate a safety margin for the design and is part of the certification process to show the airplane can withstand extreme forces.
USAF maintenance training for my AFSC (job code) was on the B-52. It was stated that normal wing flex at the tips on the BUFF was +/- 7 feet. So that's a total flex of 14'
The B-52 is a high wing aircraft with an anhedral. There are outrigger gear on the wingtips of the BUFF to prevent wingtip strikes. When they were heavily laden both outriggers could be in ground contact but normally they would not be touching the ground. Also there was some differences on the tip tanks that were mounted on the different models that may have had a definite effect on wing flex. One of the other interesting things about the BUFF is that during climb-out you would actually have a negative deck angle. It was pretty wild to see them climb out with the nose down!
The 747 is a low wing with a dihedral. Two very different design concepts, between the two different aircraft. I would have to say that the wing flex would be very different as well.
Not that I can get all that good of a look at by observing 74's during takeoff but the wing flex on a 742 does not even come close to that. Have no idea what the normal flex would be on a 74. FearlessFreep is offline.
The amount of flex is really a product of the material. The wing requires a specified ultimate strength; with metal, that translates into a given amount of flex. This can be varied within limits, but it is really the material, its stiffness to yield point ratio, and its fatigue properties, that control how much flex you are going to end up with. CFRP is a very different material, and has much less stiffness for the same yield point, and has essentially no fatigue problems. This is beneficial in that it provides a smoother ride in turbulence; the wing acting essentially like a giant leaf spring. There is some lift lost due to the nature of the curvature, though. However, this is relatively small.
--snip--
CFRP (Carbon Fiber) : Increasing stiffness, means increasing mass, means decreasing yield/lift. This material provides high strength with a relatively low stiffness/mass, meaning a good ratio and, in turn, the consequential flex that you see.
--snip--
You could build much stiffer wings with CFRP. However, the increase in mass will reduce the resultant lift more than having 'flat' wings.
Part [1.2] : The XB-52 was a big, boxy machine with a high-mounted wing swept back 35 degrees and a conventional tail arrangement. It was powered by eight P&W YJ57-3 engines with 38.7 kN (3,950 kgp / 8,700 lbf) thrust each. The J57s were fitted in four pods, two engines to a pod, suspended on pylons below and forward of the wing. The inboard pods were 10.4 meters (34 feet 2 inches) from the center-line and the outboard pods were 18.29 meters (60 feet) from the center-line. Interestingly, in practice a pod suffering an uncontrollable fire would generally fall off the wing, sparing the rest of the aircraft, a "feature" Boeing engineers would later describe as an "unexpected benefit".
The wings were thick, with a chord (ratio of cross-sectional height to width) of 15% at the root, tapering to 8% in the outer wing. They could flex from 3 meters (10 feet) down to 6.7 meters (22 feet) up. The heavy engines helped dampen wing flutter.
--snip--
The wings and the fuselage were loaded up with flexible fuel bladders, providing a total capacity of 147,120 liters (38,820 US gallons). The bladders were used, instead of integral fuel tanks, to prevent leaks that would have been caused by the flexing of the airframe in flight. When fully fueled, the wingtips dropped 2.74 meters (9 feet) while sitting on the runway. They normally curved upward in flight.
--snip--
As with the B-47, the landing gear arrangement prevented the bomber from performing a nose-up rotation during takeoff. To deal with this issue, the B-47 had been designed to sit on the runway with a nose-up attitude. In contrast, the B-52's fuselage was kept level, while the wing was canted up six degrees instead. This meant that the machine could be climbing rapidly when the nose was still pointed down, an experience that probably felt something like riding in an elevator.
--snip--
In the late 1950s, the need to disperse B-52 operations to as many airfields as possible, including overseas installations, to protect them from a nuclear first strike led to a multiplication of this demand on resources.
On 21 May 1956, a B-52B flying from Eniwietok Island in the Pacific performed the first airdrop of a US hydrogen bomb in the CHEROKEE test, part of the REDWING series of nuclear shots.
It was the first time the B-52 dropped a live nuclear bomb. The weapon, a Mark 15 "Zombie" with a yield of almost four mega-tonnes, was dropped over Bikini Atoll. Due to a procedural screw up, the bomb detonated 30 seconds too soon, with the B-52 and other aircraft flying in the exercise caught up in the blast. They were badly beaten up but survived, which was fortunate as bailing out was not an option under the circumstances. B-52s would perform other test drops of nuclear weapons until 1963, when the US signed the Nuclear Test-Ban treaty, which prohibited above-ground testing to reduce releases of radioactivity into the environment.
Starting on 16 January 1957, three B-52Bs flew around the world nonstop under Project POWER FLITE, using mid-air refueling to stay aloft 45 hours and 19 minutes. The exercise was a clear demonstration of SAC's ability to reach any place in the world, just as the nuclear test drops demonstrated what the B-52 could do when it got there.
pinch1435 : It's bull crap, that's what it is. The product of your or someone else's imaginative mind - and someone who has been watching too many movies. Terminology is all wrong, nothing like that would be released in this manner, the "fog of war" ruled at that time, none of what you posted makes any sense whatsoever.
But I'm always up for some good fiction! Could you post the rest of that "transcript" of the PEOC? Thanks!
(END OF TAPE #5)
CERTIFICATE
DEPOSITION SERVlCES, INC., hereby certifies that the attached pages represent an accurate transcript of the electronic sound recording of the proceedings of the DDO Conference on September 11, 2001.
Page 45 of 201 :
FAA: FAA dropping off.
DDO: FAA, are you still there?
FAA: Dropping off. I cannot understand what you're saying.
DDO: Roger. Stand by. We're going to try and contact you on a separate line. Make sure we get good data on it.
FAA: Okay.
SECDEF: Hello.
DDO: Calling Station, this is DDO.
SECDEF: This is Rumsfeld. (Etcetera).
• The original transcription was incomplete. The pages between the red and green flags (pp169-192) reflect the previously non-transcribed portion.
• The entire transcription was redone by USD(I) staff in conjunction with Joint Staff because there were many inaccuracies in the original.
pinch1435 : it doesn't matter if the plane is at 400 knots at 1000 feet or 30,000 feet, the wings will be loaded the same in level flight.
It has been decoded as aircraft 35, fleet 1, but cannot be further interpreted without access to American Airlines records.
A second listen to this presentation:
He mentions that the hijackers made a 180 degree turn and it was completed in a standard rate of turn. His contention is the hijackers had no reason to use the standard rate of turn but if the course reversal was entered into the active autopilot, this is how it would occur.
he discusses how the FDR analysis showed these hijack pilots never touched the rudder pedals so they couldn’t have had feet. It’s part of his support that this FDR was fabricated. I’m not a pilot but again, this could be done using autopilot, no need for feet. I’ll leave this to a pilot to confirm but this is not surprising at all.
28:40 The aircraft is in WV and comes back up on radar again- incorrect
28:50 ATC assigned AAL77 to that target, at 29:21 he re-iterates this target was assigned AAL77 -incorrect
29:54 He states this everybody declares this flight was AAL77 – incorrect
He adds that a controller (O’brien) was watching this on her screen, somewhat disingenuous, she did observe it but it wasn’t as if she was sitting there tracking it.
30:12 He adds that it’s now on radar so they can track the speed, Obrien considers this a fighter type aircraft because of the speed. It wasn’t tagged; there was no speed readout until the DCA controller tagged it with “LOOK”. In all fairness, looking at the primary target and update on radar, a controller can get a general idea of the speed.
30:42 An ATC considers it a military because of its maneuverability. There was no speed readout, there was no turn to indicate this was maneuverable, she might have considered it a fighter because of the estimate on speed, just some embellishment in his story by stating it this way.
31:30 The aircraft is barreling into Class B airspace, his contention is this flight approaching Class B airspace should cause alarm to controllers. This is an incorrect assumption also because there is no altitude readout; this target could have been well above the Class B airspace. This would be a normal and routine observation, a primary target, especially with that estimated speed would be considered a high altitude flight.
32:12 The controller in Boston is coordinating with the military fighters to have them go take a look at the very least. “They have been watching it now for quite a long time”. This is absolutely incorrect
He has embellished on number of points to bolster his story but more important, he stated a number of inaccuracies that were not just misspeaking; they were flat out incorrect facts.
I have to take this presentation from him and assess that his credibility is questionable. From what I hear him discuss about the flight activity, I can’t accept his DFDR analysis without support from somewhere else.
Downed Light Poles: Many witnesses saw the plane hit light poles. In all, five light poles were torn from their bases and broken into pieces. Pole pieces had considerable curvature as if hit by a blunt force at high speed, such as the moving wing of a plane.
The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.
Such a confluence of physical, eyewitness and other evidence provides an overwhelming case for a large plane, most probably a Boeing 757-200 and flight AA 77, impacting and penetrating the Pentagon on 9/11. No other theory has even ventured to explain all this evidence using a missile, bombs etc.
State proof the light poles were cut cleanly in half!
Downed Light Poles: Many witnesses saw the plane hit light poles. In all, five light poles were torn from their bases and broken into pieces. Pole pieces had considerable curvature as if hit by a blunt force at high speed, such as the moving wing of a plane.
Wonder why you can't properly convey the facts concerning the light poles?
The data was received in two forms, following a number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. One form could not be understood by inspection and the other, a readable comma-separated values (CSV) file, had some columns of data missing, a critical omission being radio height. After considerable difficulty, assistance in interpreting the coded file was received and the result came into public hands.
Ref.11 : It is not our position that we have proved the data file authentic.
It is of course impossible to do so.
Only an Australian computer expert, Warren Stutt, without any former expertise in decoding DFDR's, says he decoded those last seconds. And he concluded that they indicated a further SoC flight path.
Typical possible example of a psyop (psychological operation), let an outsider take the blame if that agency-operation does not succeed. By the way, Warren Stutt seems to have served in an Australian Secret Service agency before he wrote his thesis on AA77's last DFDR seconds. Said one Aussie poster here.