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.

 

Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

page: 12
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
The FAA has some nice fact sheets regarding wake turbulence....good for research.


Too bad you do not have any education or experience to know what you are talking about.
.


Are you saying the FAA data is wrong then?

Sounds like that is what you are saying....




posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Are you saying the FAA data is wrong then?


Again you misquote.

Please tell us your education and experience that you know about turbulence and jet blast.




[edit on 17-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Another common tactic. If you dont have a PHD is areodynamics and are a aircraft engineer, they wont listen. Silly premise.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Turbofans and jet blast are different.
One uses combustion.
The other uses a fan.
Different.

-Jimmy



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
All engines have some sort of jet blast. The type of engine determines how strong the blast is. On the ground it is much stronger and more dangerous, because it can get under a vehicle and flip it over. Including small planes. Jet blast in flight, unless you are directly behind the plane at a very close distance isn't nearly as dangerous. The wake turbulence is the danger in flight.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyjackblack
 


A turbofan engine is a turbojet engine with a large multi-bladed fan placed before the compressor section. All it does is cause the incoming airstream to break into a "cold" and "hot" stream.

The "cold" stream is the bypass that goes through the front fan, but not into the compressor section and beyond. The "hot" stream is obviously what goes into the compressor section.

There still is a jet blast from the "hot" section of the engine.

I think what you're confusing the turbofan engine with a turboprop engine where the blades do 90%+ of the pull and the exhaust has very little impact on the thrust.

And all airplane engines use combustion of some sort (not taking into account R/C aircraft and recent hydrogen experimental aircraft). Something's got to cause the fan to spin in the first place, right?

[edit on 17-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The wake turbulence is the danger in flight.


But wake turbulence decreases as speed increases.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:39 AM
link   
But it is still there, and it is just as dangerous. Wake turbulence never goes away as long as your wing provides lift.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well i never stated the jet blast did blow the vehicles off the road, i stated they were rocked by the jet blast.


I'm a bit puzzled as to where you're trying to go with all this.

A few seconds of slight overheating isn't really relevant in the case of an engine that's about to be totally destroyed by other means. A temperature warning (if there actually was one) is intended to give the pilot a chance to ease back before serious damage occurs.

If a plane flies over at high speed at a height of 30' or less is it unusual that a ground level air disturbance would be observed and felt?

The concentrated cone of the turbine blast is well clear of the ground at that height but there's turbulence from the wings and air frame plus a zone of turbulence around the fringes of the central blast as it mixes with ambient air. I'd suggest that the required attitude of the aircraft and control surfaces required to overcome ground effect would enhance the disturbance from those sources but the engine exhaust would have an upward bias causing it to clear the ground by an greater amount than it would at level flight.

Is there proof of something hiding in all this?



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
But it is still there, and it is just as dangerous.


But it is not as major as at low speed with gear and flaps down.

Wake turbulence does end, or they would have to make bigger time gapse between planes landing.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'm a bit puzzled as to where you're trying to go with all this.


As usual just doing research and posting facts and evidence i find, trying to find the truth about waht really happened that day.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Wake turbulence does end,
When the wing stops producing lift, sitting on the ground or after landing. But the wake turbulence goes on the whole flight. Nothing here to initiate a fantasy about 9/11.

While the plane is flying, wake turbulence does not end.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
But the wake turbulence goes on the whole flight.


But it does not stay behind near the ground (specailly at high speed and clean) or they would not be able to land planes behind airliners at all.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Even though it's slightly off-topic, I'll bite. Here's an article written by a seasoned pilot about wake turbulence, or more correctly known as wingtip vortices (as some of you have said):

www.avweb.com...

It turns out that these vortices do indeed remain on the runway and at low altitudes when aircraft are either on a landing glidescope or taking off.

Of particular interest is the second paragraph under the heading "What the Pilot Didn't Know" about the B757 testing. I'll let you all come to your own conclusions on that one.

Regardless of whether the aircraft is flying in a clean configuration or with control surfaces extended, it is still displacing the air as it passes through it, creating a temporary vacuum behind it. It's just that in a clean configuration, there is less air disturbance, but not none.

As stated in past posts, wingtip vortices are a product of lift. The higher pressure air under the wings "wrap" up and around to the top of wing at the tips producing these "mini horizontal tornadoes". If an airplane is flying, it's producing lift. If it's producing lift, it's producing vortices.

It is just as dangerous on the ground as it is in the air. My proof is in the numerous crashes that have happened when the airplane had just taken off or was on a landing approach.

Obviously, this is the reason they put the large "gaps" between airplanes while landing and taking off. In the end, their behavior is still unpredictable. We have measure and see them, but they are usually never the whole picture and they can change really quickly.

This is just my initial look into this, since the topic seemed interesting.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by HLR53K]

[edit on 18-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K It turns out that these vortices do indeed remain on the runway and at low altitudes when aircraft are either on a landing glidescope or taking off.


Ok so if there was this turbulence how come none of the eyewtiness close to the Pentagon reported feeling it ?

Sounds like another reason to question the official story.



[edit on 18-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The only thing I can think of to that comment is that wake turbulence isn't an "instant" phenomenon.

L-1011 NASA Test

As you can see, it takes time for the wingtip vortices to actually be "felt" by the dyes. My hypothesis would be that by the time the vortices "hit", the B757 would have already hit the Pentagon and the people had other worries on their minds. Maybe they actually did feel the vorticies, but attributed them to the explosion? Again, it's only my hypothesis.

A slightly more representative video of what might have happened at the Pentagon:

B757 Landing

The vortices have their effect a few seconds after the B757 has long passed over the area, so you can see how my hypothesis of the people around the Pentagon mistaking the vortices for the explosion has some merit. You have to give me at least that much.


In my eyes, the official report explanations are plausible. Meaning that there is a chance that it could have happened the way they describe it. Was it what actually happened? Maybe or maybe not.


Oh, and a video of your enjoyment of a small airplane landing through vortices left by the airplane before it:

Runway Vortices

I'll take the video at face value for now, so it shows that the vortices can indeed remain on the ground for some time after the airplane that made them has passed.

Here's another interesting video showing dye being used to highlight the vortices of a B747. Yes, it's not a B757 and it's not clean, but it shows a bit of how the engine exhaust gets overpowered by the vortices coming from the wings and getting blended in:

B747 Low Flight Vortices

[edit on 18-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
The only thing I can think of to that comment is that wake turbulence isn't an "instant" phenomenon.


But still no reports of wake turbulenace at the pentagon only the cars being rocked on the highway.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



Maybe the pressure waves from the explosion acted against the incoming vortices? Still only my hypothesis.

And remember, vortices grow in strength as they get further away from the airplane. So it would make sense that if the cars on the highway were further away, they would feel the effect more.

As much as it kills me to go off-topic, I'd like to know how far the highways of which you speak are away from the Pentagon itself. An overhead layout or the such.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53KStill only my hypothesis.


Thats why we need to do research and file FOIA requests to try to get the facts and evidence to get the to truth of what happened that day.

People that still believe the official story only go by what they have been told so what they state are only their opinions of what happened that day, no real facts and evidence to support the official story.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
As much as it kills me to go off-topic, I'd like to know how far the highways of which you speak are away from the Pentagon itself. An overhead layout or the such.


This shows the flight path(s) and the crossed roads.
Full credit to whoever produced this pic of course (it wasn't me)



There's another pic floating around showing the exact original location of the damaged light poles but I couldn't find it at short notice.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join