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: 17
1
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
here's a video of a low flying 757
www.youtube.com...

here's a video of a 757 flyby then vertical with people just standing around watching
www.youtube.com...

here's another video showing some pretty impressive handling of a 757
www.youtube.com...

here's a 757 doing a low pass over a crowded air field
www.youtube.com...

Simply not seeing people and cars being blown all over the place or... AT ALL.




posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Geez that looks like fun!!!

We used to be able to fly a low pass, (at a modest and sane speed) as a last hurrah! on our retirement flights.

Nothing dangerous, or excessive....but the FAA put an end to it, about ten years ago.

WW



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   
It is my great regret that in my trip to the region, I did not visit this beach. Had I only known it existed.

www.jetphotos.net...

As you can see there are no people being blown about here, and there are hundreds of photos of the beach and a/c on approach over it. There are warning signs and occasionally people are whipped by the wake turbulence, but they don't close the beach. Probably because the force isn't enough to toss around cars and people, even at this height.

Edit: I DID see footage of jet blast from a plane throttling up ready to depart in the opposite direction. The plane was on the ground, and the physics behind this (and the difference between in flight turbulence/blast and static aircraft) has already been explained to you).

[edit on 24-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You should look for the footage of the retirement flight of a Luftwaffe pilot in a F-4. You thought those Boeing passes were low!! yikes...



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
here's a video of a low flying 757


1. Arfe any of the plazne doing 500 mph ?

2. Are any flying within feet of cars on a highway?

I believe the answers are NO and NO.

Oh and what about all that talk about wake turbulence ?



[edit on 25-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

1. Arfe any of the plazne doing 500 mph ?

2. Are any flying within feet of cars on a highway?

I believe the answers are NO and NO.

Oh and what about all that talk about wake turbulence ?


1.) Speed does not factor into jet blast. A jet could go 500 mph with no engines period, such as in a vertical dive. Jet blast comes from engine thrust.

2.) Yeah here, this is even a larger plane a 747 that has 2 more engines then a 757. The photographer said the plane cleared the fence by about 10 feet and the people by about 20 feet. Notice not even the sand blows away.



This is the St. Maarten-Princess Juliana Int'l Airport landing approach in which thousands of planes land every year, and no one gets blown away. The evidence is there, if you don't want to accept it, thats your choice.

Investigation into the truth is a good thing, however, I think you have your mind set on what you think the truth is.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   
From doing all these propulsion calculations for turbojet, turbofan, ramjet, and rockets, I went back to the simulator and noticed one thing.

It's most likely based on the same formulas I use. And guess what one of the assumptions for those formulas were?

Ideal conditions

Meaning no losses to the outside world. Everything functions at 100% efficiency. Now, we all know that this is hardly true in real life.

But the NASA site doesn't specifically state if it's a simulator for ideal conditions or they know what the component losses at each stage and factored it in. I'm basing my guess on the fact that all their stage temperatures are all nice, whole numbers.

If it indeed is using ideal conditions, then the temperature inside the combustion chamber might not be high enough to trigger an overheat alarm in real life.

Just something to think about.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sway33
1.) Jet blast comes from engine thrust.


Yes, and if you look at the sim i posted you would see how much thrust is comming out of the engine going that speed and alititude.

I post facts and evindece while looking for truth, something i have not seen form the people that believe the official story.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
If it indeed is using ideal conditions, then the temperature inside the combustion chamber might not be high enough to trigger an overheat alarm in real life.


But the point is the jet blast and other figures are close to what the engines would be doing.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But the point is the jet blast and other figures are close to what the engines would be doing.



If you go back and read what I wrote a few posts ago (which you probably ignored), you'll notice that I showed that the 9 K temperature increase from 480 mph to 500 mph is only a .625% increase.

If you consider non-ideal conditions (i.e. energy losses due to heat from friction or a lower than calculated fuel burn), you can see that this could easily fall unto the acceptable range of engine temperatures.

We usually factor in a 1-3% energy loss per engine component. So the compounded losses easily overtakes the small .625% temperature gain (basically, due to the losses, the engine temperature might never get up that high to be any danger).

That would take care of the "overheat" debate.


It's true that the jet blast might only decrease a small amount, but remember, as I explained, pretty much all of that energy is going into moving the airplane forward.

If the airplane did fly close enough to clip the antenna of a car, then I do see it possible for the engines to cause the car to rock a bit. However, I would still have to attribute the turbulence behind the airplane to the cars it didn't fly that close to.

As all of the photo facts and evidence shown to you have proven, you have to be really, really close to the nozzle of an engine to feel its effects if the airplane is still flying.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
If you go back and read what I wrote a few posts ago (which you probably ignored), you'll notice that I showed that the 9 K temperature increase from 480 mph to 500 mph is only a .625% increase.


Did you figure in altitude ? Those engines are not designed to fly at that speed and altitude.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Did you figure in altitude ? Those engines are not designed to fly at that speed and altitude.



Have you seen the kinds of tests they run through the engines? The put them on stands about 60 feet off the ground and run them for hours at a time.

They fire multiple birds at the blades. They separate blades while the engines are still running. They dump hundreds of gallons of water into them for hours.

All this is done with the engine just on a stand in the range of 60 feet off the ground. If they can do these tests on them for hours, don't tell me it won't be able to run at the lowest altitude.

Otherwise, how could airplanes take off? The engines are designed to go full throttle at virtually 0 feet off the ground for a few minutes just to accelerate the airplane to take-off speed.

Did you figure that in?


Video of a more modern GE90-115B undergoing testing:
www.youtube.com...

Rolls-Royce engine undergoing water ingestion:
www.youtube.com...

Don't know what kind, but yet another turbofan undergoing testing:
www.youtube.com...

Please don't tell me that they can't run at low altitudes.


What you're confusing design ability with is efficiency. They are designed to run more efficiently at the airplane's cruise altitude, which is obvious, because it spends most of its time there. This does not mean that it isn't designed to run at low altitudes.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by HLR53K]

[edit on 25-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Have you seen the kinds of tests they run through the engines? .


Yes, i was in the Air Force and have seen engine test and have been either in the back seat or at the planes during engine test.

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.



[edit on 25-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
here's a video of a low flying 757


1. Arfe any of the plazne doing 500 mph ?

2. Are any flying within feet of cars on a highway?

I believe the answers are NO and NO.

Since you know this to be true, please tell me the following:
1. Exactly how far up these planes were from the ground.
2. How far they were from said people, planes, etc.
3. How fast they were going.

Since you know the answer is NO and NO, you must be able to answer these 3 questions. I anxiously await your responses.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Since you know this to be true, please tell me the following:



Lets look at some facts,

There is no evidence stating the planes are flying at 500 mph. (i can tell plane speed somewhat having worked on planes in the Air Force)

They also are not flying feet above cars on a highway at 500 mph.





[edit on 25-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Yes, i was in the Air Force and have seen engine test and have been either in the back seat or at the planes during engine test.

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.



So how does this entire section you picked out change anything that I've said so far?

The bolded text just proves what the other have been saying all along.

If you use this site, then you must accept what the bolded text says.


Then please, for all the facts. Please tell us how fast you think that airplane was flying. The one that you had not personally seen flying in the air.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Since you know this to be true, please tell me the following:



Lets look at some facts,

There is no evidence stating the planes are flying at 500 mph. (i can tell plane speed somewhat having worked on planes in the Air Force)

They also are not flying feet above cars on a highway at 500 mph.


Since you know this to be true, please tell me the following:
1. Exactly how far up these planes were from the ground.
2. How far they were from said people, planes, etc.
3. How fast they were going.

Since you know the answer is NO and NO, you must be able to answer these 3 questions. I anxiously await your responses.






[edit on 25-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Here's another low landing 747 right over top calm water and people having a grand ole time


www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
here's a low flying harrier and a guy trying not to flinch

www.youtube.com...

Here's another fun high speed fly over in a RAF harrier right over a group of soldiers (warning a bit of swearing)
www.youtube.com...

Here's a few VERY low level, high speed passes
www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Here's another low landing 747 right over top calm water and people having a grand ole time


www.youtube.com...


This is clearly fake. Ultima has already explained to you that these people would be crushed and tossed about by the exhaust plumes and vortices of that aircraft. He also read something somewhere that said this cannot happen for somereason. Please stop posting lies.

Brought to you by "Del" -- an equal opportunity smart-ass.


(Yes, I'm feeling snarky today...)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join