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.

 

The PentaCon

page: 13
65
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
14 CFR 23.303 FAA Airworthiness Standards - Factor of Safety

An airframe certificated for 2.5G must be designed to 3.8G. The aircraft designer will also apply their own safety factor on top of the FAAs.




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
14 CFR 23.303 FAA Airworthiness Standards - Factor of Safety

An airframe certificated for 2.5G must be designed to 3.8G. The aircraft designer will also apply their own safety factor on top of the FAAs.


Darkbluesky, I believe you have the wrong regulations. It appears you have posted FAR Part 23 which is Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic and Commuter Category Airplanes.

Airliners such as the Boeing 757 and the Lockheed L-1011 are certificated under FAR Part 25.

# Part 23 – Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic and Commuter Category Airplanes.
# Part 25 – Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes.


posted by darkbluesky
BS- more intentional disinfo. All air liners can withstand 6-7 Gs.



6 to 7 g's huh?
Maybe you could check with Boeing on that one.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   
# Part 25 – Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes :

14cfr25.301.pdf

Easy, just change the last part of the url, the cfr23 part of the link to cfr25 .
And if you want another page, change the 25.301 part to f.ex. 25.397.
(see there f.e. (c) Limit pilot forces and torques.)
You can find mentioned page parts all over the place in the texts.


§ 25.301 Loads.

(a) Strength requirements are specified
in terms of limit loads (the maximum
loads to be expected in service)
and ultimate loads (limit loads multiplied
by prescribed factors of safety).
Unless otherwise provided, prescribed
loads are limit loads.

(b) Unless otherwise provided, the
specified air, ground, and water loads
must be placed in equilibrium with inertia
forces
, considering each item of
mass in the airplane.

§ 25.303 Factor of safety.

Unless otherwise specified, a factor of
safety of 1.5
must be applied to the prescribed
limit load which are considered
external loads
on the structure. When a
loading condition is prescribed in
terms of ultimate loads, a factor of
safety need not be applied unless otherwise
specified.
(Amdt. 25–23, 35 FR 5672, Apr. 8, 1970)


So, nice for darkbluesky, who is putting up a fine investigative effort, but a poor social effort on John, it's the same safety factor.

I am still searching in this huge compendium for the " Maneuver load factor ".
And the positive limit load factors in g’s, and, in addition, the negative limit load factor, for transport category airplanes.

I'll find it, John and darkbluesky.
Let's see who find it first, I like any intellectual challenge.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
The nitpicking part :

An airframe certificated for 2.5G must be designed to 3.8G.


2.5 times 1.5 is still 3.75 G.

The goal of darkbluesky's arguments as I see it :

You agreed that at 450 knots, the flight maneuver you have in mind (to explain the possibility of the new flightpath by Jack, still combined with the former official flightpath and downed lightpoles) is impossible, based on physics.

Thus you introduced a new idea, screwing down the final airspeed at the last half mile or so, down to 300 to 350 knots, based on some doubt on your side of the officially given last airspeed of the plane at impact, or just before.
This airspeed is many times in the past calculated following radar trackings, the Dod video clips, the latest 2 DoD toll boot camera videos, and a few more.
It is much more than your proposed airspeed.

So now, we are all on a non necessary quest for details, because you want to fit your idea in blatantly false assumptions.

For your own sake, let's continue, because the details unearthed will have importance in future discussions with hard core government defenders.

Let' roll.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
www.asa2fly.com...

Pages :207.
§25.333 Flight maneuvering envelope.
On page 28 is a nice chart on the maneuvering envelope.

"" §25.333 Flight maneuvering envelope.
(a) General. The strength requirements must
be met at each combination of airspeed and load
factor on and within the boundaries of the representative
maneuvering envelope (V-n diagram) of
paragraph (b) of this section. This envelope must
also be used in determining the airplane structural
operating limitations as specified in §25.1501.
(b) Maneuvering envelope. ""

(chart follows, can't copy it from a pdf file)

on page 29, bottom first column :
"" (3) VA need not be more than VC or the speed
at which the positive CNmax curve intersects the
positive maneuver load factor line, whichever is
less. ""

§25.1501 can be found in Appendix G, starting on page 189 to 192 from 207 total.

Page 125 :
"" §25.1531 Maneuvering flight load factors.
Load factor limitations, not exceeding the positive
limit load factors determined from the maneuvering
diagram in §25.333(b), must be established. ""

Have a look at that diagram at page 28.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigMoser
Its like the security video shows half of a plane.. i'll get a picture up with some modifications of brightness and contrast.

Here ya go, this is what I visualize.



Only problem is what you think is the plane is still there after it impacts the pentagoon.




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
"Smoking Gun" evidence that commercial airliners can, and do exceed FAA certificated Maneuvering Load Limits:



NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

N National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, D.C. 20594
Safety Recommendation
Date: September 4, 2003
In reply refer to: A-03-41 through -44
Honorable Marion C. Blakey
Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
Washington, D.C. 20591

Background

On November 17, 2002, at 1800 eastern standard time, a Canadair CL-600-2B19
(CRJ-2), N868CA, operated by Comair as Delta Connection flight 5109, a scheduled passenger
flight from Atlanta, Georgia, to Washington, D.C., encountered severe turbulence while in a
descent near Rockville, Virginia. There were no injuries to the crew or passengers. The airplane
was returned to revenue service on November 18, 2002, after it was visually inspected for
damage in accordance with the procedures for severe turbulence or extreme maneuvers outlined
in the Canadair Regional Jet (CRJ) Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM).
The National Transportation Safety Board’s examination of information from the flight
data recorder (FDR) indicated that large vertical accelerations occurred during the turbulence
event. Further analysis by Canadair indicated that during the event, the wing, pylon, and
horizontal stabilizer to vertical stabilizer attachment structure experienced loads outside their
certificated design envelopes. Specifically, this analysis revealed that the airplane experienced
vertical accelerations ranging from 4.3 G positive to 1.9 G negative, resulting in internal loads
well in excess of the certificated limit load for these structural components.

emphasis mine.

NTSB Memo

John, I'm begining to think about how I'd like my crow done...roasted or blackened. I won't actually eat it quite yet though. I have a little more digging to do.

My instinct tells me that even though civil transport airframes are certificated for 2.5G, which requires a minimum design load of 3.75G the aircraft designers and manufacturers add in an additional safety factor. This article indicates they commonly use a safety factor of 2.5 for composite assemblies:

www.afrlhorizons.com...


For example, engineers typically design composite tail sections of commercial airliners to withstand a stress 2.5 times greater than the maximum stress anticipated during their service life—a factor of safety of 250%. With a better understanding of the stress states and long-term performance of composites, aerospace designers should be able to significantly reduce this factor of safety.


So.... for now I'm backing off from my 6-7G claim, but I still think 5-6 is not unheard of, or impossible.

And finally, allow me to apologize to you publicly for my earlier unfortunate remarks.







[edit on 2/28/2007 by darkbluesky]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 06:01 AM
link   
The 2 officers specifically placed the flightpath above or near the fence with the trees in front, and the plane flying just above the tree line.

Observe the flightpath they both wrote on the aerial photo provided by Jack.
It goes over that fence and trees, for both officers.

Accepting that flightpath, it becomes clear that it is physically impossible to topple light pole 1.

And if you insist on the combined flight paths, do understand that the plane must have had the characteristics of a fighter jet, to perform 2 half rolls in that ultrashort time and space.

Nobody reported such extreme behaviour in the last few hundred meters.
There are only a few eyewitness reports of a very slow left and right bank, more like a bit of wobbling, far away from a sharp right bank pulling the right wing down at least 45° and directly followed by a sharp left bank pulling the left wing down from a 45° up position all the way down to the opposite 45° down position. And all that while accelerating at full throttle.

Only a much smaller jet fighter or an acrobatic airplane could do that at a much lower airspeed.



I have a few other questions for Jack.

The black officer indicated there was a lower elevated road in front of him at 9/11.
Now it was heightened up, as he himself stated in the interview.
You even included a photo of the situation on 9/11 of that road in front of him at that day of 9/11.
How could they see the point of impact, both of them, if that elevated road blocked their view of the first floor point of impact of the plane?
Or did mr. Lagasse have a better point of view from his position at the first of 2 pumps, the most west one.
I mean, was the elevated road running downwards to the north?
So Lagasse at least had an unobstructed view at the first floor point of impact?

I start to think that both combined what they actually saw of the impact with their later observations. This is common behaviour for most eyewitnesses.
You have to really fry them with specific questions to come to their real time observations.

Btw, I had the strong impression that both officers were thinking that they were defending the official flightpath, without even recognizing the grave implications for the "toppled light poles official flightpath".

Jack, have you posted more details already here or at other forums for your strong conviction that the plane overflew the building?
If so, please supply us with links.

I believe you base that conviction on the statements of these 2 officers, and the mapped terrain elevations and existing roadsigns, light poles and radio masts on the day of 9/11, and the radar tracking of the plane.

In that case, you must have a definite height above the Arlington National Cemetery fence and nearby trees, deducted from the FAA or NTSB released radar trackings and perhaps some more sources.

I am very intrigued by that, and really would like to see your explanation, since at the moment, this is the main culprit for your theory of a fly-over instead of an impact. Was it high enough to dive into the Pentagon, missing all obstacles in the new flight path, or was it proved low enough to implement the impossibility of performing any manoeuvres to avoid said obstacles, thus forcing the conclusion that it must have overflown the Pentagon.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   
April 4 1979

TWA 841 experienced an altitude loss of 35,000 in approximately 60 seconds. During recovery at approx 5,000 feet the aircraft undergoes sustained vertical loading greater than 4 G for approx. 30 seconds. and greater than 5 G for 15 seconds. Max G recorded was 6. The airplane landed under contol with damage. No fatalaties, minor injuries.

Here is the Accident Report:

NTSB- AAR-81-8

Here is Apendix C - Flight data recorer plot:



And here is a blow up of the vertical acceleration plot so you can clearly read the axis values:




So apparently, civilian transport aircraft can withstand 5-6G.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   
John, In light of the information provided above, I was wondering if you'd like to modify any of the following statements you made previously during our conversations:


Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Do the math. A level 75 degree banking turn exerts approx 4 Gs on the airframe. This maneuver is possible.


To talk of anything over 3 G's in a modern airliner is ridiculous. They are not certificated for the kind of load maneuvering. They are certificated to +2.0 and thats it. 2 g's is lot of g's in an airliner. During their entire lifetime they will rarely see that.


This is true, however the following is not:


Originally posted by johnlear
3 g's is absolutely not seen ever. 4 g's is what aerobatic aircraft are stressed for.



Originally posted by johnlear
The airplane in its lifetime will probably never see 2 g's. Airliners are carefully flown by professionals and other than an occasional thunderstorm with strong vertical currents it will never even see 1.5 g's.


Untrue.


Originally posted by johnlear
If you want to worry about the pilot remember that at 4 g's a 180 pound pilot weighs 720 pounds! And if you think that a Arab hijacker with minumum time is going to be able to sustain a 4 g turn weighing 720 pounds then you just don't understand what is is like to weigh 720 pounds or what it is like to try and hold on to a control column when you arms, wrist and hands weigh 4 times normal.



Originally posted by johnlear
Not even possible. And not to worry, the airplane won't be flying at 4 g's!


Really?


Originally posted by johnlear
To state that this maneuver is possible is to have no understanding of the flight dynamics involved or to have any understanding of the physiological ramifications of trying to function as a pilot at 4 g's.


I thought carefully about making this post, but since my understading of flight dynamics and physiology was dismissed, and my knowledge and integrity were challenged, I felt I had no other option.



[edit on 3/1/2007 by darkbluesky]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
This question has been asked repeatedly and NOT answered so I will pose it again.

What part of a differing flight plan PROVES that the plane DID NOT hit the pentagon?

That is stated by Jack multiple times yet no proof is offered. Is there some geographic feature that makes it impossible for the plane to hit the building if the flight plan is different? Seems to me that given the head on nature of the flight path that Jack is selling (and I'm buying) grants an easier target to hit than the angular "official" flight path.

So the question remains, how does the new flight plan equate to a non pentagon strike?



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilhatman
This question has been asked repeatedly and NOT answered so I will pose it again.

What part of a differing flight plan PROVES that the plane DID NOT hit the pentagon?

That is stated by Jack multiple times yet no proof is offered. Is there some geographic feature that makes it impossible for the plane to hit the building if the flight plan is different? Seems to me that given the head on nature of the flight path that Jack is selling (and I'm buying) grants an easier target to hit than the angular "official" flight path.

So the question remains, how does the new flight plan equate to a non pentagon strike?



It's the fact that ALL of the physical damage/evidence could only have come EXCLUSIVELY from a plane that came from the opposite direction.

All official reports (9/11 commission/ASCE) have the plane coming from the southwest because of this. The eyewitnesses saw the opposite.

The trajectory of the downed light poles lines up perfectly with the damage to the inside of the building leading all the way up to the c-ring exit hole.

All of this damage is officially documented in the ASCE report but it is physically impossible for it to be created from a plane on the north side of the gas station.








(light poles highlighted in yellow)




[edit on 1-3-2007 by Jack Tripper]

[edit on 1-3-2007 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by johnlear
Not even possible. And not to worry, the airplane won't be flying at 4 g's!


Really?



Darkkbluesky. Please don't mix apples with oranges. The number of g's a Boeing 757 could sustain came up because we were talking about making the violent turns at 100 feet agl just before it allegedly hit the Pentagon. We are not talking about vertical loads sustained by aircraft due to turbulence at 35,000 feet.

The answer to your post above where you say "Really?", my answer is "Yes, really!". I am posting the relevant section of my previous post for your review.


Now lets look at someone trying to fly a Boeing 757 one hundred feet off of the ground at from 350 knots to 450 knots. If he pulls the maximum of 2 g's, which the airplane is certificated for the wing will be generating enough lift to support twice the aircraft's weight which we'll say is 250,000 pounds. So twice that is 500,000 pounds of lift is being generated to keep the airplane level. Now lets say the pilot is one hundred feet off of the ground and pulls 3 g's in a turn. The weight that the wing will now have to support is now 750,000 pounds and it is not designed to do that. As the weight, caused by the excessive g's is increased, the airplane will begin to buffet because it can no longer support the weight it is being asked to support with the available lift being generated frrom the wings. The buffet is caused by the air over the wing separating from the wing and no longer producing lift. As the buffet begins lift instantaneously decreases. At 100 hundred feet off of the ground there is not much room for error. I would estimate much, much less than a second between the time the high speed buffet began and the airplane descended wing first into the ground.
.

The fact that the Boeing 757 would not still be flying, as I stated, is not due to vertical loads sustained due to clear air turbulence. It is due to the fact that at 4 g's the wing will not be creating enough lift to support the weight of the aircraft. You have also failed to address the issue of how a pilot with limited experience would be able to fly these violent maneuvers at 100 agl without a g suit. Remember, a 180 pound pilot would weigh 720 pounds!


posted by darkbluesky I thought carefully about making this post, but since my understading of flight dynamics and physiology was dismissed, and my knowledge and integrity were challenged, I felt I had no other option.


Your understanding of flight dynamics and physiology was dismissed only because you are trying to mix apples with oranges. I am not challenging your knowledge of flight dynamics, physiology or your integrity. I am challenging how you are applying that knowledge to the aerodynamics of a Boeing 757 flying at 100 feet agl, allegedly making steep banks approaching the Pentagon.

As to my statement:


Airliners are carefullly flown by professionals and other than an occasional thunderstorm with strong vertical currents will never see more than 1.5 g's.


I stand by this statement. You posted 2 incidents which occurred during the past 28 years. Like I said 'occasional'. These incidents are rare and the only reason the airplane survives is that it has thousands of feet of altitude in which to recover.

Thank you for your withdrawal of your statement that airliners are designed to 6 and 7 g's.


The Airbus 380 is requesting certification for 2.5 g's. Ultimate load factor would be (150% ultimate load) 3.75. The wing failed between 3.70 and 3.75 when is was bent up approximately 24 feet.

I will email Boeing tomorrow to see if we ca get an answer to the ultimate load factor to which it was tested. As you may know, for FAA certification the fuselage is secured and by hydraulic lifts the wings are lifted up to the proposed failure point, that is, if the airplane is requesting a maximum weight of, say, 300,000 pounds and they are presenting an ultimate load factor of 4.0 g's then the upward load has to equal 4 times 300,000 pounds or 1,200,000 pounds. This is just an example for clarity. 2.5 g's is normal certification and 150% of that is 3.75 g's.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 05:47 AM
link   
I agree.
If we believe those 2 officers, and I strongly believe they were not acting (and thus telling lies, they clearly did NOT), something becomes damn important.

Do you still have contact to these 2 officers, and did they get harassed by suspicious telephone calls, got reprimanded, got warned to stop talking, got "debriefed", or whatever other form of intervening.?

Please try to get mr. Willington on the phone or interviewed in front of a camera, he will be a strong supporting witness, that's for sure.
And ask him for his co-worker who didn't want to be interviewed by the media reporters, but gave the same info as mr. Willington about the north flightpath crossing Arlington National Cemetery, together with his sighting of the second airplane circling the Pentagon shortly after.
The time frame in which that circling occurred will be very important to dissect the statements of the pilot of the C-130 which I always have strongly mistrusted.
He talked in his first statement as if they lifted off on a touristic tour, while we all know by now that they must have heard about the Tower attacks and the stressed situation in the air, when lifting off.

And the tower at Andrews Air Base must have known about the nationwide clearance of US airspace coming in over the command chain.
The military was much earlier informed than they wanted us to believe.
There was a video conferenced circle of decision makers started, much earlier than they always said.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 07:06 AM
link   
the B-727 dumped from very thin air, circa 35,000 foot down, in a gradient of increasingly denser air.
This is also the reason why the pilots were able to recover from that immense fall.
The ultimate stress on the wings was also increasing, in effect the few last seconds were the strongest load on the wings, but also the reason the pilots were at all able to pull it out of its dive.
Only in much denser air they could take advantage of the maximum lift possibilities of the surface of the wings combined with the denser air.

FAA regulations include a 3 seconds period of maximum allowed overload for all passenger planes.
The max load on this particular plane's wings exceeded that period, and still the plane survived with damage, but was able to land.

Again, that is totally different from a 757 flying between 30 and 100 meter high in the densest possible air, at nearly ground level, and then you proposed that it could make those 2 acrobatically impossible sharp turns.
And recover in about 200 meters from a nearly vertical position of its wings back to horizontal, in less than 1 second.

Since you try to include the lamp poles damage and the impact imprint on the west wall, that means that the plane impacted at about a 12° angle, with it right wing tilted up under that angle.

Impossible for that huge plane to recover from your supposed 75° last turn angle to that 12° angle in the distance covered at that officially reported nearly maximum possible speed at ground level in dense air.

And if the plane should have miraculously made those acrobatic turns, it would have ploughed in the ring road, or the Pentagon lawn with one of its wings.
And the damage pattern of light poles struck would have been totally different, on different poles and also on road spanning signs.

The plane had far too less manoeuvrability space, in the vertical and horizontal plain, to ever been able to have a remote chance to perform that way.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Darkkbluesky. Please don't mix apples with oranges. The number of g's a Boeing 757 could sustain came up because we were talking about making the violent turns at 100 feet agl just before it allegedly hit the Pentagon. We are not talking about vertical loads sustained by aircraft due to turbulence at 35,000 feet.


John, I am not mixing concepts. Acceleration forces are acceleration forces regardless of the altitude. We obviously don't have the FDR details for the Canadair Jet but the 727 FDR clearly shows that the max load excursions coincided directly with pull out maneuvers at around 5,000 feet, not 35,000 ft. Please review the plot.

The pilot recovered from the dive by pulling back, levelling and climbing, most surely after alot of other inputs to control slip and spin.

The 5-6 G loads coincide with positive flight control. The aircraft was flying, The wings were puling the ship out of a dive and lifting the ship.


During their entire lifetime they will rarely see that. 3 g's is absolutely not seen ever.


Simply not true. I found just two instances in just an hour of searching.



Now lets look at someone trying to fly a Boeing 757 one hundred feet off of the ground at from 350 knots to 450 knots. If he pulls the maximum of 2 g's, which the airplane is certificated for the wing will be generating enough lift to support twice the aircraft's weight which we'll say is 250,000 pounds. So twice that is 500,000 pounds of lift is being generated to keep the airplane level. Now lets say the pilot is one hundred feet off of the ground and pulls 3 g's in a turn. The weight that the wing will now have to support is now 750,000 pounds and it is not designed to do that.


I have clearly shown that whether the wing is designed to do it or not, there is clear evidence that commercial transport aircraft wings can and do withstand up to 6 Gs and provide sufficient lift for positive flight control.


As the weight, caused by the excessive g's is increased, the airplane will begin to buffet because it can no longer support the weight it is being asked to support with the available lift being generated frrom the wings. The buffet is caused by the air over the wing separating from the wing and no longer producing lift. As the buffet begins lift instantaneously decreases.


This is all true at a certian load factor. Again, I've shown, that at least for the 727 in question, the loading failure point was somewhere above 6 G since the wings stayed attached and provided lift at 6 G. Again, review the plot.


At 100 hundred feet off of the ground there is not much room for error.


I agree. I'm simply trying to set the record straight it terms of theoretically possible flight manuevers, and max G loading for commercial airliners.

In this thread I've demonstrated with formulae, graphs, and NTSB accident investigation evidence, that banking a 757 into the pentagon from the north corner of the Citgo Station, and also flying roughly over the damaged light poles is theoretically possible at speeds aoround 350 kts.


The fact that the Boeing 757 would not still be flying, as I stated, is not due to vertical loads sustained due to clear air turbulence.


I never siad that, I said the vertical loading occurs during recovery from loss of control.


It is due to the fact that at 4 g's the wing will not be creating enough lift to support the weight of the aircraft.


As the 727 FDR data clearly indicated, and as I discussed above, The wings experienced max load at 5,000 during pull out from the rapid loss of altitude.

Again, the wings were generating lift at 5-6 G and providing positive flight control.


You have also failed to address the issue of how a pilot with limited experience would be able to fly these violent maneuvers at 100 agl without a g suit. Remember, a 180 pound pilot would weigh 720 pounds!


I concur that it's unlikely that an untrained pilot could do it, but I've been talking about theoretical possiblities. As for the G suit, not significant. The airline pilot that recovered the 727 had no G suits. Strength is needed to maintain control of the ship, but the G suit simply prevents black out, as you know.

Most fit young males loose consiousness at 7-8 G without a G suit.



As to my statement:


Airliners are carefullly flown by professionals and other than an occasional thunderstorm with strong vertical currents will never see more than 1.5 g's.


I stand by this statement. You posted 2 incidents which occurred during the past 28 years. Like I said 'occasional'. These incidents are rare and the only reason the airplane survives is that it has thousands of feet of altitude in which to recover.


We were never talking about recoveries John, we were talking about max G loads. And again, I've shown that the G loads we're talking about can be withstood for short durations by modern commercial airliners.



Thank you for your withdrawal of your statement that airliners are designed to 6 and 7 g's.


You're welcome.



The Airbus 380 is requesting certification for 2.5 g's. Ultimate load factor would be (150% ultimate load) 3.75. The wing failed between 3.70 and 3.75 when is was bent up approximately 24 feet.

I will email Boeing tomorrow to see if we ca get an answer to the ultimate load factor to which it was tested. As you may know, for FAA certification the fuselage is secured and by hydraulic lifts the wings are lifted up to the proposed failure point, that is, if the airplane is requesting a maximum weight of, say, 300,000 pounds and they are presenting an ultimate load factor of 4.0 g's then the upward load has to equal 4 times 300,000 pounds or 1,200,000 pounds. This is just an example for clarity. 2.5 g's is normal certification and 150% of that is 3.75 g's.


Understand. And thanks for contacting Boeing.

I just want to point out that certificated max load and ultimate load obviously do not match actual load bearing capabilities as the 2.5g certificated 727 demonstrates.

[edit on 3/2/2007 by darkbluesky]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I just want to point out that certificated max load and ultimate load obviously do not match actual load bearing capabilities as the 2.5g certificated 727 demonstrates.



Thanks for the post darkbluesky. Your input is appreciated.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Just in case this horse isn't dead yet, I'm 'gonna kick it one more time.


Limit load is established by a mixture of FAA certification criteria and Boeing design requirements. Coupled with a safety factor, this establishes the strength at which we design and build the airplane.


This comes from a Boeing Company Flight Test Journal newsletter website. Go to the 10/19/2005 entry:

Boeing Flight Test Journal

So as we can see, the manufacturers design load is higher that the FAA's certificated load with safety factor (ultimate load) For the 777 the ultimate load is 3.75g. The linked YouTube video shows Boeing testing the 777 wing to 154% of design load. We can safely assume the design load was at least the FAA ultimate load of 3.75G. That would give a failure point of at least approx. 5.77 G. And remember this is based on the maximum anticipated loaded wieght of the aircraft. An in sevice aircraft with a lighter load could withstand even more vertical loading.

I know John has seen what ocurs in this video, probably in person, but anyone else has not seen this...I recommend watching, it's impressive.


www.youtube.com...



[edit on 3/2/2007 by darkbluesky]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I realize this thread has departed too far from the original topic for too long.

I'll refrain from futher technical aircraft discussions here. John, If you want to continue our discussion, feel free to u2u me or I'll come over to your "questions" thread.

Thanks

LaBtop -please refer to my response to John Lear regarding your thoughts about altitude, About air density....The recorded vertical acceleration loads apply to loads passing through imaginary lines running perpendicular to the top of the wings, vertical stabilizers and cabin deck, the resistance to the air, based on airspeed, has nothing to do w/ vertical g loads.



[edit on 3/2/2007 by darkbluesky]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I'd like to ask Jack, and anyone else, to repsond to a few statements and a couple of questions.

Why should we accept anything Sgt. Legasse says since he was totally wrong regarding which light poles were damaged? approx (+58:00 in the video)

But then again, If you want to make him a credible witness, why not accept his firm and clear statement made at +49:02 when asked by the interviewer "Did you see the plane pick up at all?" His answer..."No...no." And make no mistake, you could tell by his tone he meant it did not pick up, not that he didnt see it pick up.

I aslo wonder why Robert Turcios flight path is dismissed? He stated with no reservation that the plane passed over the corner of the canopy and the two adjacent trees. Shown here in yellow:



Also on this view, I've drawn in what I estimate to be Sgt. Legasse's pointing gestures made at +50:30 to +50:33. You'll remember he was actually at the pump furthest from the pentagon. If you look at the angle from his car that he points when gesturing toward the pentagon you'll see it is not directly toward the sign truss over 27 but toward the underpass where light pole #1 was located.

For another perspective, look at this photo. Legases car was where the Ford Ranger is positioned. When pointing in the video, it looks to me he points almost at the northern most inside pump, which is in a line with the underpass.



Back to Robert Turcios, Why does CIT take his very weak "lift up" comment and turn it into the entire thrust of the "no impact theory" but totally dismiss his testimony that the airplane passed over the corner of the canopy?

Sgt Brooks stated that as the airplane passed over these trees they were blown around by the wake turbulence:



Also on this photo I've drawn in Legasses pointing directions and what I estimate to be the flight path that best resolves the diferences in the observations made by the three on site witnesses.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join