Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Here is a jet engins sim that can be used to test how the engines would have performed.

To show what kind of jet blast the engine would have been putting out at the Pentagon.

www.grc.nasa.gov...

1. Load Turbo Fan engine CF6. This is close to the RB211 that the 757 at the Pentagon used.

2. Input speed and altitude.


If you input a altitude of 60 feet and start to raise the speed up when it gets to 480 you will get a serious warning for Temp limits.

Try different altitude and speed settings that the plane at the Pentagon would have done to see what happenes to the engine and check out how big the jet blast would be or if the engine could have handled what the official stroy states.


[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Anyone have any questions about setting up and using the sim let me know.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Nice simulator applet but what are we proving with it ?

Maybe the that the pilot voided the warranty or caused accelerated bearing wear & tear for a very short time is all I can think of. The blast from those engines at full throttle is pretty spectacular.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Nice simulator applet but what are we proving with it ?


Well a few things.

1. The altitude and speed the pilots were flying at would have probably destroyed the engines in a short time.

2. The jet blast from the plane at the Pentagon would have blasted people and cars.


[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Nice simulator applet but what are we proving with it ?


Well a few things.

1. The altitude and speed the pilots were flying at would have probably destroyed the engines in a short time.

2. The jet blast from the plane at the Pentagon would have blasted people and cars.


[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


1. a short time is all they needed, plus aircraft engines are very stable, fighter jets during the gulf wars flew at this height on a regular basis to avoid SAM's / AA fire.

2. the period of time the jet was overhead would have been very short, know from experince that a tornado fighter jet at afterburner at 40-45ft ( at end end of runway road runs past it) will rock a panel side van but not blow it over, and these engines produce more thrust than the boeing ever would.

Wee Mad Mental



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
1. a short time is all they needed, plus aircraft engines are very stable, fighter jets during the gulf wars flew at this height on a regular basis to avoid SAM's / AA fire.

2. the period of time the jet was overhead would have been very short, know from experince that a tornado fighter jet at afterburner at 40-45ft ( at end end of runway road runs past it) will rock a panel side van but not blow it over, and these engines produce more thrust than the boeing ever would.



1. Airliners use turbofans, military fighters use turbojets. Fighters fly high to aviod SAMs and AA, not ground level like the plane at the Pentagon.

2. I guess you have not seen all the videos of airliners blowing cars and people around?

[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weemadmental
1. a short time is all they needed, plus aircraft engines are very stable, fighter jets during the gulf wars flew at this height on a regular basis to avoid SAM's / AA fire.

2. the period of time the jet was overhead would have been very short, know from experince that a tornado fighter jet at afterburner at 40-45ft ( at end end of runway road runs past it) will rock a panel side van but not blow it over, and these engines produce more thrust than the boeing ever would.



1. Airliners use turbofans, military fighters use turbojets. Fighters fly high to aviod SAMs and AA, not ground level like the plane at the Pentagon.

2. I guess you have not seen all the videos of airliners blowing cars and people around?

[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


1. yep, those fighters never fly low.
2. Thrust is thrust. If you park your jet, big or little and run it up, you can blow over cars if your engine is big enough. 77 on 9/11 was going down at 4 to 9 degree, the thrust was not aimed at the ground, but up into the air.

The engines would overheat on 9/11, but the planes were only at full throttle for 20 to 30 seconds, much longer and the darn engines would try to take the plane to MACH1; then what?

neat engine sim

lower


[edit on 6-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



I'm curious about this video then:
www.youtube.com...

32 seconds in.

Why didnt that high speed pass flip those small prop planes then? Or toss the people standing next to them?

Or is there a magic speed that these jet washes start.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   
On a flying jet, which is moving forward, the blast is not sufficient to knock over a vehicle. First off, the thrust is lessened due to the forward movement of the aircraft, secondly the blast goes straight back from the engine, dissipates rapidly, and would have passed over the cars. To flip a vehicle, it requires a sustained blast at high power from a slow moving or stationary aircraft. The vehicles size, shape, and stability, as well as the blast angle are also factors in this (Obviously nose-on a vehicle is designed to cut the wind). The vehicles that you normally see getting blown over in videos are close behind a stationary aircraft running at higher power, and the vehicles are normally either unstable vehicles (like belt loaders) or vehicles with a large flat surface area. We used to drive right behind running jet engines in bob-tails all the time on the ramp, and at most you get rocked around some.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 

Here are some more for you:
F-104


Harrier


Bad languageWarning


757


DC-10


727


A-10


SR-71


F-18


Some bad language, but funny as heck:



[edit on 4/6/2008 by defcon5]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Why didnt that high speed pass flip those small prop planes then? Or toss the people standing next to them?


This video has been talked about many times.

1. The pilot was a very expreienced pilot with thousands of hours of flight time, not 100 hours like some of the hijackers.

2. The plane is not traveling the speed of the plane that was supposed to hit the Pentagon.

3. Check out 15 seconds in to the video and you will see and hear the tiubulence and jet blast coming from the plane.

[edit on 6-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Here are some more for you:


If you are going to show videos please limit them to the type of planes that were supposed to have been used on 9/11.


[edit on 6-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. The pilot was a very expreienced pilot with thousands of hours of flight time, not 100 hours like some of the hijackers.


The experience of the pilot has no bearing on the effect of jet blast. Strawman argument.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
2. The plane is not traveling the speed of the plane that was supposed to hit the Pentagon.

Unless you know the groundspeed of the aircraft, you have no idea what the comparison is.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
3. Check out 15 seconds in to the video and you will see and hear the tiubulence coming off the plane.

And it still has no effect on the small aircraft parked on either side of the runway. Small aircraft are even more prone to Vortexes and Jetblast then ground vehicles are due to their light weight and wings. This is why there are separations on aircraft.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
If you are going to show videos please limit them to the type of planes that were supposed to have been used on 9/11.

Again jet blast is jet blast. Do you think that when they train ramp agents, they go: “Well its ok to walk directly in front of or behind a F-16 because they use turbojet engines, and those don’t really count…"?


Lets be honest about why you don’t like those videos, its because you don’t see people getting knocked off their feet like you want us to believe would happen. If a jet going high speed 10 to 30 feet above a person head does not knock them off their feet, its certainly not going to flip a vehicle.

[edit on 4/6/2008 by defcon5]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   
www.earth-citizens.net...

What happens if the plane is moving at high speed? At sea level, and 400 mph airspeed -- the exhaust velocity declines only by the tiniest smidgen, to 2242 feet per second. That's relative to the velocity of the plane, so the ground speed of the exhaust would be reduced to about 1100 mph -- which is still plenty fast enough to send Probst spinning like a pinball. Not to mention the issue of wake turbulence and ground effect, as the weight of an 80-ton jetliner must be supported by exerting downward pressure on the air squeezed between its wings and the ground.



Some witnesses who were inside cars on rd 27 said that their car was rocked and pushed sidely on the road. This limited effect is coherent with the overfly of a Boeing 757 plane flying at approximately 350 mph with engines at full throttle. The case presented in the video quoted above is completely different. This "no cars were pushed over the safety barrier of rd 27" statement is by no way an argument to say that the Pentagon was not hit by a B 757.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Again jet blast is jet blast.


NO jet blast is not jet blast. We are talking about a specific type engines on a specific tpye of aircraft. Please try to keep to the facts of the topic.

By the way i was a crew chief on F-4s that had some of the biggest turbojets, so in know a little about jet blast.

But we here we are talking airliners with turbofans.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
www.earth-citizens.net...

Please don’t send me to a site full of truthers twaddle as some type of proof of anything; truthers sites are inherently full of mistakes. I have walked on foot behind aircraft running taxi throttle while marshalling them. You don’t need to explain how jet blast works to me. Unless you a few feet away from the tail, its not going to do anything to you. You have a much greater chance of getting hurt by FOD that it kicked up off the ramp and threw into your eye.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I have walked on foot behind aircraft running taxi throttle while marshalling them.



Why are you so upset at my site, because it supports what i posted? At least i can post facts and evidence, more then i can say for the people that still believe the official story.

Yes and i have seen people and equipment blasted around just by an aircraft throttle up to leave the parking area.

Oh, by the way i can post a lot more sites that will support what i posted.





[edit on 6-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Fighterjets is turbofans, Airliners use Turbofans.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
Fighterjets is turbofans, Airliners use Turbofans.


You might want to do research on engines before posting.









 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join