Boeing spokesperson laughs at the idea of a Boeing 767 going at 500 MPH at 700 feet

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
I am laughing

Please watch this TAP Airbus...




Any questions?




posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
There is enough evil in the world, and plenty of terrorists who want nothing more than to kill every last one of us,


So should I go ahead and get out my plastic wrap and duct tape?

LMAO.

Why have they not attacked us since? After our invasion or Iraq, why did they go there to fight? Why not come attack us here?

I don't buy into your theory of the terrorist are out to get us. I think the terrorist want back what is theirs. The land and natural resources. Most could have fully developed countries if they were allowed to produce and manufacture their own resources.

If Japan came here and stole my tomatoes that I make a living off of, I'd kill the Japanese too. But, if they quit stealing my tomatoes, I'd probably just let them live in peace. Infidel or not.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Very impressive piloting, how do we tell what speed it is traveling at?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Folks,

If the Internet and ATS had existed in 1905 (I know, silly, but stay with me here) and newspapers had reported the flight of the Wright Bros. at Kitty Hawk in 1903, I daresay there would be a host of people posting arguments, and finding 'experts' to claim that it wasn't possible!! The 'eyewitness' testimony would be laughed at and others would crawl out of the wood work to spout pseudo-science to 'prove' that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. It just never seems to end.......

spelling on 'pseudo'...

[edit on 6-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Now, another thing...

I don't know where this idea of '500 MPH' came from. Maybe it's just because it's a nice round number? Maybe it was introduced into the lexicon in order to pollute the discussion...a red herring, if you will.

Here are the facts, as they relate to a B767. The Airspeed Indicator has two needles that move...one is, of course, the airspeed needle and the other is what is called the 'barber pole' because it is red/white striped. Both needles receive input from the ADC (air data computer)...actually, there are two ADCs, one for the Captain, one for the F/O.

As its name implies, the ADC is constantly monitoring other inputs...static air pressure, pitot pressure, OAT (outside air temp), TAT (total air temp)...etc. All of this data is fed to various components, not just the A/S incicator...the FMS needs this, the Engine Limiting system needs the info (to calculate thrust settings) and the data is also sent to the AutoThrottle system as well.

Per design limit, the barber pole will be at 340K at sea level. This is referred to as 'VMO' (velocity max operating). trivia - when power is removed from the A/S indicator, flags will appear, and the barber pole will drop to a default position of about 275...this is to be an instant indication to a pilot that the instrument is not reliable.

Now...it is completely possible to exceed the 340KIAS limit at or near sea level in a B767. Let's say we get up to 350KIAS. That equates to 402 MPH. Still, that's pretty darn fast, and not normal at that altitude, but well within design limits of the airframe.

I won't bore everyone with the differences between IAS and TAS, since it is really negligible at near sea level anyway.

Back to the thrust/drag argument. Yes, at a constant altitude (say 1000') at max throttle and ignoring the overspeed aural warning there is a point where the combination of induced and parasitic drag will balance the effects of the available thrust. I do not know what that 'steady-state' airspeed would be. I don't think it is even flight-tested, there is no need to. The simulators (and I'm talking the real sims, not the ones on your home computer) can probably get a close approximation, since it's all about the 0s and 1s in the digital world. However, a lot of thrust, combined with the influence of gravity will allow an airpeed above the 'steady-state' speed hypothesized earlier.

You know, everyone here has a choice. You can pick and choose un-coordinated bits of knowledge from Google or wherever, or you can go take some actual education in flying and understand it more thoroughly. Oh, it'll take a few years and several thousands of dollars and a lot of work, but then you'll better understand Aviation and airplanes.

I've made a career of it...over 30 years now. So I think I know a little something.....



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Valhall,

Your contribution is important, but may I quibble with just a few points? I realize, and appreciate the work you did so many decades ago with the L-1011 and the DC-10...but as I read your post I wanted to clarify a few things.

Yes, the Tri-Star and the DC-10 were three-engined airliners. Lockheed's design was first, and MD sorta rushed theirs through...I am not dismissing the DC-10 in any way, it was a nice airplane to fly, but after talking to people who flew them both, the Lockheed won hands down.

My point is, regarding your laminar airflow studies...they were related to the center engine, since both airplanes were in configuration similar to the B727. The thing that sets the L-1011 apart is, the center (and it's the #2, not 'third' engine) was mounted closer to the centerlilne of the fuselage. The intake on top, forward of the vertical fin, was in front of an S-duct, much like the Boeing. The DC-10 engine, conversely, was 'embedded' into the structure of the vertical fin. So the intake of the nacelle in that instance wasn't much different, except, of course, for how the laminar flow from the fuselage top might affect it.

So, basically...engines are 'numbered' (when viewed from the pilot's seats) left to right, 1,2,3,4 etc. Helps to prevent confusion...

minor text edit...

[edit on 6-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
It appears some posters are still ignoring the principles of aerodynamics, concerning exactly of what commercial jetliners are capable of doing under any and all conditions.

So, let us examine some weight stats on a 767-200:

www.airliners.net...


767-200 - Empty with JT9Ds 74,752kg (164,800lb), with CF6s 74,344kg (163,900lb). Operating empty with JT9Ds 80,920kg (178,400lb), with CF6s 80,510kg (177,500lb). Max takeoff 136,078kg (300,000lb), medium range max takeoff 142,881kg (315,000lb).


The above is the same model allegedly used in NYC. Yet, the empty weight is only 163,900lb or 178,400lb. The take-off weight is 300,000lb or 315,000lb. respectively. That is a gross difference of 136,100lb. or 136,600lb respectively. Of course, some people may wish to attribute all that excess to payload, luggage, and any equipment on board. However, would that actually be true on take-off weight? Or, is there something more involved than physical take-off weight of airplane and contents?

Until people actually examine aerodynamic principles, it is very easy to be convinced commercial jetliners are no less capable of extreme maneuvering at the any altitude levels, than the B-2 stealth bomber or F-18 Hornet. That is not true.

Of course, any claims of alleged hijackers being the experts, of the Blue Angels expertise, may well seem plausible to some but certainly not others, as evidenced in these and many other discussions across the Internet. Yet, no proof has been provided it is true. In fact, no proof of commercial jetliners maneuvering as B2 stealth bombers or F-18 Hornets has been proved either. There is insistence it can happen but no proof.

Even when Boeing personnel, including an engineer, hedges but agrees the 767 cannot fly at 700', or even 1000', at high speeds, even that cannot be true, because some posters would then have to admit they were lied to by the "official" reports.

As for the Pentagon, when perimeter vertical supports are still standing at an area, of wall, alleged to have allowed a 757 to be "swallowed", all logical reasoning states it never happened that way. Even the Pentagon's own camera video says no plane impacted, much less was "swallowed" intact by the Pentagon.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion,

Do you understand the difference between GTOW and EW? Did you not realize that Jet-A weighs something? In fact...no, you can Google it and find out, I will tell you how much Jet-A weighs...6.7 lbs/gal. Of course, that is an average. At extreme temps, the density will vary, from about 6.5 to 6.8 or 6.9.

I think I made it clear, earlier, that cherry-picking information that you really do not fully understand can lead to inerrant conclusions.

Adding...I have presented my credentials. Others who wish to post outrageous 'disinfo' should pony up theirs...

[edit on 6-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Thanks for the aviation info! Not to derail, but just to clarify. Wasn't that many decades ago
(1989), and we were just required to use one or the other of the two planes listed.

P.S. As I remember it, it was the integrated nature of the DC-10 that caused me to have to phone Boeing. You could get the "stand off" of the 1011 engine, but the height to the engine intake on the DC-10 wasn't published.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Now, another thing...

I don't know where this idea of '500 MPH' came from. Maybe it's just because it's a nice round number? Maybe it was introduced into the lexicon in order to pollute the discussion...a red herring, if you will.


The 500 mph comes as an average speed of the two speeds published by the NIST official report on the two planes that flew into the two WTC towers. One was estimated at around 470 mph and the other at around 530 mph (those are from memory, but I think I'm close enough).

So the questions being asked with the 500 mph figure are legit for what the guy was investigating.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Thanks for the aviation info! Not to derail, but just to clarify. Wasn't that many decades ago
(1989), and we were just required to use one or the other of the two planes listed.

P.S. As I remember it, it was the integrated nature of the DC-10 that caused me to have to phone Boeing. You could get the "stand off" of the 1011 engine, but the height to the engine intake on the DC-10 wasn't published.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Valhall]


Thanks for that, Valhall,

I'm just a little curious about the time frame (1989). Could you elaborate? Reason is, as I read your post on this thread, I had the impression you were involved in some of the EARLY studies of both airplanes in question as they were being designed/flight tested. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Oh, say your PS. OK, I see, you needed to know the dimension of the 'stand-off' height of the two intakes. Did you not also need to know the design of the nacelle intakes, i.e., the diameter of the nacelle leading edge as it related to the diameter of the N1 fan?

One more thing, Valhall...I know it's not your area of expertise, but many on these forums have wondered about the engines, specifically, why they were so hard to find at the sites. I know that a jet engine is basically a core of many parts, mostly titanium in the 'hot section', and even though a layman will see the huge fan (called N1) at the front, they don't realize that the 'core' of the engine is of a much smaller diameter.

adding...I remember that both the L-1011 and DC-10 were being designed in the early 1970s. I'm sure a simple google search will discover info about test flights and such....a DC-10 crashed in 1979, in Chicago. I was in the process of getting hired at United, then...all hiring stopped because of that accident...my career took a different turn at that point.

Perhaps I will describe this in more detail, later.

Carry on!

[edit on 6-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


How about a 300KIAS, 60+ degree climb by an RNZAF 757?

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


Various maneuvers:
www.youtube.com...

Are they "like an F-18 or B-2" no, but they ARE very impressive for an aircraft of that size. I don't see why you bring the B-2 into it anyway, because it's really NOT that maneuverable.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by OrionStars
 


How about a 300KIAS, 60+ degree climb by an RNZAF 757?


Exactly what does that prove in relation to the context I presented? I also presented the difference between take-off weight vs empty weight of a civilian aircraft not converted military aircraft. What relevant relationship does your presentation have to that?

www.airforce.mil.nz...

I never said any 757-200 could not successfully complete a 60 degree climb. It is done all the time on take-off from civilian airports. That is not an issue I presented at any point in time. Therefore, I do not understand your point on that degree of climb.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
No, they are NOT done all the time at an airport. They generally do 10-15 degree climbs at airports, maybe a little steeper. At 60 degrees things would be slamming all over the cabin, and it would put an uncomfortable amount of pressure on the passengers. Pilots climb out at an angle that's comfortable for passengers and not going to freak them out. I have NEVER seen a 757 or any other passenger plane do anything NEAR a 60 degree climb or steeper. A 757-200 with RB211 engines calls for 3 degrees per second up to 15 degrees nose up on take off. The maximum attitude with 17,636lbs of fuel is 20 degrees. SOP recommends less than 20 degrees for passenger comfort.

As to the point of my post, did you or did you not say:


Originally posted by OrionStars
Until people actually examine aerodynamic principles, it is very easy to be convinced commercial jetliners are no less capable of extreme maneuvering at the any altitude levels, than the B-2 stealth bomber or F-18 Hornet. That is not true.


I would call most of the maneuvers in those videos pretty extreme maneuvering at low altitude.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No, they are NOT done all the time at an airport. They generally do 10-15 degree climbs at airports, maybe a little steeper.


Did you mean to say increments of those degrees until they finally equal 60 degrees, the further out the plane goes from the airport, in relation to the ground? Planes would eventually have to equal a 60 degree climb or more, in order not to stay too close to ground level, with much more gravitational and atmospheric resistance than normal freer flowing crusing altitude atmospheric and greatly reduced gravitational pull conditions.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
No, he said just about what he meant, I would assume. Commercial flights do not rotate to 60 degree AOEs. Simple geometry here. The distance up gets greater the further out you travel on an angle.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Since I never stated anything about rotatating, I do not know what that is supposed to relevantly mean. How does rotating relate to normally climbing up to higher altitude levels after take off?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The main issue is to not confuse "maneuverability" with a maneuver. Maneuverability has to do with the response of an aircraft, i.e. the time (and control surface force) over which a maneuver can be accomplished. A commercial airliner will never have the maneuverability of a fighter...but it will have an immense amount more control than the fighter.

So the videos of the 757s doing extreme maneuvers can give the sense they are highly maneuverable, but relatively speaking, they are not. Likewise, the comparison to F18s does'nt really mean anything, even in trying to make a point. Because there were no maneuvers on 911 that compare to the capabilities of a fighter.

The topic of this thread, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the maneuverability of 757s, so I'm unsure why the effort in this area. It has to do with the performance of the aircraft - which is a totally different issue for those skilled in the art.


[edit on 2-6-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Since I never stated anything about rotatating, I do not know what that is supposed to relevantly mean. How does rotating relate to normally climbing up to higher altitude levels after take off?


Because "normally climbing up to higher altitude" implies a constant angle. You talked about a derivative of angle - that's rotation. It was defined in your statement. I didn't interject it, you did.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I used the 757 videos to show that large aircraft could do maneuvers that are beyond what most people assume they can, because there are few if any of a 767 doing those maneuvers. The 757 is used by several militaries, that show them off at airshows, whereas the 767s are currently only used in the AWACS role in Japan, and the very limited number of KC767s that are still only being used in flight tests. Just an attempt to show that planes can do far more than people were giving them credit for being capable of.





top topics
 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join