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.

 

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

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
You can rationalize your way through anything dealing with the "official" reports. However, until you can physically prove anyone wrong, you are only opining and nothing more.



How is that any different than what you claim? You have made some technical claims that have not been subject to independent positive confirmation, and referenced a few credible sources, who may or may not represent the dominant view among pilots and engineers. I have made some claims about credible sources (over two dozen pilots) that can't be verified by you, and Weed has made technical points that have not been proven beyond doubt by any credible source you or I can easily look up. So, aren't we all in the same boat?




posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by L driver

But that's not a good point, because it isn't related to the point I was making. The context I limited myself to was: those who question that a 757 piloted by Hanjour hit the Pentagon. ONLY MIHOPers, BY DEFINITION, might think that. So, why should I mention all the other shades of skepticism mentioned in these polls? It has nothing to do with the context. Why should, say, the % of LIHOPers have any relevance to the basic claim of a 757 piloted by a Hanjour-level trained pilot striking the Pentagon? I fail to see the relevance.


I know exactly what you intended, which is why I made the point I did. You are entitled to believe my point was not good. However, that is your opinion with which others, besides myself, will strenuously disagree.

We have a truism in my profession because it has never proved untrue. "Figures do not lie, but liars figure." So it always goes with the way people can often skew statistics to baselessly sway others. It is done all the time with statistical figures. It is all in how far too many people want figures to untrue, including deliberately left incomplete, in order to sway subjective opinions of others.

I rarely have any use for any statistics. I know better than to place any faith in all statistics. I have found far fewer correct uses of statistics than incorrect uses. Normally, Zogby is one of the few statistical experts correctly presenting poll statistics.

It is all in the way the questions are worded as to which way people will subjectively reply. Ask questions worded the correct way, and correct answers will normally be given, plus, will be of statistical value. Ask them the wrong way, and statistics are worthless. That was just one example of how statistics can be calculated for deliberate untruth. There are many more reasons why statistics can never be reasonably accepted at face value.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by L driver

How is that any different than what you claim? You have made some technical claims that have not been subject to independent positive confirmation, and referenced a few credible sources, who may or may not represent the dominant view among pilots and engineers. I have made some claims about credible sources (over two dozen pilots) that can't be verified by you, and Weed has made technical points that have not been proven beyond doubt by any credible source you or I can easily look up. So, aren't we all in the same boat?


But it has. In Boeing labs and test planes under simulated vs. actual conditions and then compared to see if they match for results. Which is why the engineer from Boeing responded to the question asked in the video, "I don't know. Pretty slow."

The day a new model rolls off the assembly line at Boeing, it becomes their test model for any and all conditions during flight. The same way it happens with automobile manufacturers.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I just wish to offer, for the betterment ( is that a word?) of this board, one answer to the first of three I proposed to OrionStars (which he has yet to answer...)

Question: What is an APU?

Answer: the APU is the 'auxiliary power unit' that is usually designed into a modern commercial jet in the tail. (extra bonus points, anyone who can tell us where the APU was physically located in the B727?? anyone??)

OK, back to the question. The APU. What is it, and what does it do??

I have described it. And, I have asked a question, a simple question that anyone who is a pilot will know. Hopefully, this is a question that is not easily answered from a search on the Internet.

I am banking (no pun) here that the Internet will NOT provide sufficient information. Meaning, I will know if anyone tries to tell me something, if it was from the Internet, vs. a real pilot who actually knows what I am talking about.....

Editing to add...

I am trying to 'voir dire' myself, to the best of my ability, on this forum. You can decide to believe me, or not...your choice. Feel free to look at my other posts, on other forums (forae?).

[edit on 7-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Since the topic is related to what Boeing had to say, what was the point in your strawman argument? Terminology is not the topic of this discussion. Capability of airplane manuevering at a specific altitude is. Boeing gave us the answer, in the video of potential top speed, at 700' altitude. The engineer blatantly implied it was impossible for the 767-200 to fly at high speeds at 700' altitude. "I don't know. Pretty slow.", was the Boeing engineer's response.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
The video has been removed, what a surprise. If anyone has another link or could re-upload the video I'm sure a lot of us who didn't get to see it would be very happy.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars



I know exactly what you intended, which is why I made the point I did.


Orion, I think I see the source of the diagreement. I wrote:



In addition, posters on 9/11 discussion boards often forget how few people question the Pentagon crash. The latest poll shows only 4.6% of the US pop believing in an inside job. Given this, why would the FBI feel compelled to cater to that sliver of the skeptical public representing 9/11 skepticism?



What I should have said, to eliminate any misunderstanding, is "why would the FBI feel compelled to cater to that sliver of the public who doubts F77 hit the Pentagon."

I did not mean to imply ONLY 4.6% of the population is skeptical of 9/11 in general terms. That is my fault for not being clearer. Re-worded that way, I hope you are satisfied with my meaning.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by L driver

How is that any different than what you claim? You have made some technical claims that have not been subject to independent positive confirmation, and referenced a few credible sources, who may or may not represent the dominant view among pilots and engineers. I have made some claims about credible sources (over two dozen pilots) that can't be verified by you, and Weed has made technical points that have not been proven beyond doubt by any credible source you or I can easily look up. So, aren't we all in the same boat?


But it has. In Boeing labs and test planes under simulated vs. actual conditions and then compared to see if they match for results. Which is why the engineer from Boeing responded to the question asked in the video, "I don't know. Pretty slow."

The day a new model rolls off the assembly line at Boeing, it becomes their test model for any and all conditions during flight. The same way it happens with automobile manufacturers.


Looks like I need to do some more research then. I need to know a few things. Do you have a link to the test results? And, how does one confirm what the actual flight path parameters were (alleged to be) in the final seconds of F175?



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I am 'replying' to myself, here, to get back on track.

Top of the thread is about a Boeing spokesperson 'laughing' at the idea of a 767 going 500 MPH at 700 feet.

Well, I think I have demonstrated that the '500 MPH' concept is not valid, yes it seems to have come from an estimation from 'NIST' reports...but, I must emphasize these are estimations.

I have posted the facts about how airplanes fly, not just on this thread, on others as well. Please feel free to peruse all of my posts, I think I have presented a coherent explanation.

Yup! '500 MPH' at 700 feet is unreasonable. BUT, 402MPH at 700 feet is not! Is that a big difference? You decide......



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Yup! '500 MPH' at 700 feet is unreasonable.



Unreasonable merely to fly at this height/speed, or to maneuver as F175 did (allegedly did)?



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by L driver

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Yup! '500 MPH' at 700 feet is unreasonable.



Unreasonable merely to fly at this height/speed, or to maneuver as F175 did (allegedly did)?


Please, L driver, do not 'snip' out of my post to make it look like I said something that I did not!!

If anyone of credible intelligence wishes to read on, they will see that I said 'Yup! "500 MPH at 700 feet is unreasonable.".......BUT, I continued on...402 MPH is not impossible. NOW, I am paraphrasing myself, and I invinte anyone who is reading this discourse to scroll up and see what I actually wrote.

It is disgusting that someone would pull ONE sentence out of another person's post, and take it out of context.

Am I the only one who sees this as wrong??



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Terminology is not the topic of this discussion. Capability of airplane manuevering at a specific altitude is. Boeing gave us the answer, in the video of potential top speed, at 700' altitude. The engineer blatantly implied it was impossible for the 767-200 to fly at high speeds at 700' altitude. "I don't know. Pretty slow.", was the Boeing engineer's response.


Wouldn't a better question be if it can be sustained at that speed easily at that altitude? If you have some height loss then it would be easier to sustain that speed. With a larger mass it would be easier as well, since there would be larger inertia and air resistance would be roughly the same, so the increased speed could be maintained for longer.

Also the engine thrust at maximum might be enough, not really sure unless someone knows the drag at 500 mph at 700' and the maximum thrust at 500mph and 700'.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
(extra bonus points, anyone who can tell us where the APU was physically located in the B727?? anyone??)


just behind the centre fuel tank, in the bottom of the fuselage, and I'd imagine just in front of the rear luggage compartment.

From here(pdf)



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


apex,

You are almost correct. The APU in the B727 was, as it turns out, an 'after-thought'...It was installed in the right side of the airplane,



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
apex,

Exactly. You can't just cold call a PR person, or even an engineer and ask "What is the maximum speed of 767 at 700 feet?" First they probably won't know, but if they did answer they would give you the DESIGN max velocity. They would not even know, and would have to go off and calculate, the maximum POTENTIAL velocity because it would be far outside the DESIGN operating envelope. Boeing will always answer within the FLIGHT ENVELOPE (i.e. safe operating range they designed to) unless you specifically ask them and force them to talk to you outside that range.

You have to ask the question correctly in order to get the correct answer.

The correct question is: COULD a 767 (at the flight parameters listed on the NIST tables) go 530 mph at 800 feet altitude outside its design flight envelope? And, if it could, would it stay together?

This requires the Lift/Drag curves and the Horsepower/Thrust curves. You have to look at all of these not just to make the statement "can the engines make it go that fast" (which is what most people seem to be fixating on), but what speed was achievable IN A DESCENT...at least what speed could the airframe hold up to.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by OrionStars
Terminology is not the topic of this discussion. Capability of airplane manuevering at a specific altitude is. Boeing gave us the answer, in the video of potential top speed, at 700' altitude. The engineer blatantly implied it was impossible for the 767-200 to fly at high speeds at 700' altitude. "I don't know. Pretty slow.", was the Boeing engineer's response.


Wouldn't a better question be if it can be sustained at that speed easily at that altitude? If you have some height loss then it would be easier to sustain that speed. With a larger mass it would be easier as well, since there would be larger inertia and air resistance would be roughly the same, so the increased speed could be maintained for longer.

Also the engine thrust at maximum might be enough, not really sure unless someone knows the drag at 500 mph at 700' and the maximum thrust at 500mph and 700'.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
(extra bonus points, anyone who can tell us where the APU was physically located in the B727?? anyone??)


just behind the centre fuel tank, in the bottom of the fuselage, and I'd imagine just in front of the rear luggage compartment.

From here(pdf)


Sorry, Mods, for pulling a full quote,

I just have to pull the full quote so others may see how silly the OPs original post is......



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
OK, back to the thread...

I have already provided my expertise.....

I am waiting for others to provide theirs....



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by L driver

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Yup! '500 MPH' at 700 feet is unreasonable.



Unreasonable merely to fly at this height/speed, or to maneuver as F175 did (allegedly did)?


Please, L driver, do not 'snip' out of my post to make it look like I said something that I did not!!

If anyone of credible intelligence wishes to read on, they will see that I said 'Yup! "500 MPH at 700 feet is unreasonable.".......BUT, I continued on...402 MPH is not impossible. NOW, I am paraphrasing myself, and I invinte anyone who is reading this discourse to scroll up and see what I actually wrote.

It is disgusting that someone would pull ONE sentence out of another person's post, and take it out of context.

Am I the only one who sees this as wrong??


Not disgusting if one didn't comprehend the necessary link between the two sentences. If I failed to see the connection, my fault. What exactly is your point then? Maybe I'm not seeing it.


Thanks



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Question: What is an APU?

Answer: the APU is the 'auxiliary power unit' that is usually designed into a modern commercial jet in the tail. (extra bonus points, anyone who can tell us where the APU was physically located in the B727?? anyone??)


It was located in the wheel well IIRC. The intake for it was on top of the fuselage, or in some screwy place like that, and the physical APU was underneath in the wheelwell where it could only be used on the ground when the wheels were down.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Well, I think I have demonstrated that the '500 MPH' concept is not valid, yes it seems to have come from an estimation from 'NIST' reports...but, I must emphasize these are estimations.

I have posted the facts about how airplanes fly, not just on this thread, on others as well. Please feel free to peruse all of my posts, I think I have presented a coherent explanation.

Yup! '500 MPH' at 700 feet is unreasonable. BUT, 402MPH at 700 feet is not! Is that a big difference? You decide......



I don't think you're understanding. The 570 mph (that's the real figure) that the NIST CHOSE is what their severe damage model is based on. If the velocity cannot be supported, their model must be retracted. So it doesn't matter if they flipped coins for it, estimated it, pull it out of their butts, or what - that velocity MUST be supportable or their damage model is absolutely no good.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Question: What is an APU?

Answer: the APU is the 'auxiliary power unit' that is usually designed into a modern commercial jet in the tail. (extra bonus points, anyone who can tell us where the APU was physically located in the B727?? anyone??)


It was located in the wheel well IIRC. The intake for it was on top of the fuselage, or in some screwy place like that, and the physical APU was underneath in the wheelwell where it could only be used on the ground when the wheels were down.


Zaphod...

My question was really directed at OrionStars.

Actually, the APU was located in the area you mentioned, (the wheel well)except that the exhaust was NOT on top of the fuselage...it was right there on top of the wing.

Yes, you are correct about the APU on the B727 only being able to be used on the ground...there is something, on all Boeings (and other airplanes, for that matter) called an air/ground sensor. It is built in to the landing gear. It has many functions, and on the B727, one function was to disable the starter circuit to the APU while in flight...the APU on the B727 was not authorized to operate while in flight, unlike the APU on the B757 and B767.

In fact, on the B757/767 one of the items on the 'Engine Failure/Severe Damage/Separation' checklist is..."APU -- Select Start, and Run"

See, the APU, once it is started in this scenario (i.e. an engine out) will now provide electrical power to busses that lost power from the failed engine...The generator on the APU has the same output and load capacity as the engine-driven generators, on the B757/767.

edit to add...no, I DID NOT learn this from the internet, in case you all are wondering. I know this because I actully flew the darned airplnes!!

[edit on 7-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

second edit to add...funny, sorta, story about the APU on the B727. Seems there was an incident, years ago, when an uncommanded evacuation began, it was initiated by passengers. See, it was night, the airplane had just landed...and per procedure, the Second Officer (the B727 had three pilots...Captain, First Officer and Second Officer, aka 'flight engineer')...anyway, as per post landing procedure, the S/O started the APU. There was a flash, out of the exhaust, as the fuel ignited...a passenger saw this, and shouted 'FIRE' and induced panic...

Well, chaos ensued, as you can imagine. But this was years ago. Modern jets have the APU installed conveniently in the tail, away from prying passengers' eyes.....

Next time you're at the airport, take a look at the tail end of a B757/767...you will see the exhaust of the APU, right there....

[edit on 7-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join