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: 22
1
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   
For the last time, vortices are strongest when the aircraft is slow, heavy, and clean.

www.faa.gov...



I have seen photos of helicopters used for fighting fires by hovering over the fire and using the wake to try to blow out the fire.

LOL.

Any links?


[edit on 27/4/2008 by C0bzz]




posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
For the last time, vortices are strongest when the aircraft is slow, heavy, and clean.

www.faa.gov...



I have seen photos of helicopters used for fighting fires by hovering over the fire and using the wake to try to blow out the fire.

LOL.

Any links?


[edit on 27/4/2008 by C0bzz]


Oh wow! Nice find! The maximum is at heavy, slow, and clean huh?



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by jfj123
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.



You seem to have forgotten to answer my questions so I'm going to repost them for your convenience. Please read my quote above. Thank you.


[edit on 26-4-2008 by jfj123]


ULTIMA,
You have seemed to miss my question again so I'll repost it for the 5th time for your convenience. I anxiously await your expert responses.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
I have seen photos of helicopters used for fighting fires by hovering over the fire and using the wake to try to blow out the fire.

LOL.

Any links?

Photo:
www.talkingproud.us...

www.talkingproud.us...

The prop wash from the helicopter was used to push the fire back away from the cockpit. This eliminated the heat, fire, etc. as a hazard to the aircrew in the cockpit of the aircraft.



[edit on 27-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Photo:
www.talkingproud.us...

www.talkingproud.us...

The prop wash from the helicopter was used to push the fire back away from the cockpit. This eliminated the heat, fire, etc. as a hazard to the aircrew in the cockpit of the aircraft.



[edit on 27-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Very interesting. Those intermeshing rotor helicopters were interesting, but sadly way too complex mechanically.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
Helicopters themselves generate powerful [and dangerous] vortex wakes which have been useful in fog-clearing operations in SEA, a technique tested at the Army’s Cold Region Research and Engineering Laboratory and developed at AFCRL


I have seen photos of helicopters used for fighting fires by hovering over the fire and using the wake to try to blow out the fire.


You may have seen pictures of the old Husky over a/c fires. The idea was not to put out the fire but to blow the flames away from firefighters on the ground enabling them to get closer to the aircraft (especially if you needed to extract the pilot).



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
You may have seen pictures of the old Husky over a/c fires. The idea was not to put out the fire but to blow the flames away from firefighters on the ground enabling them to get closer to the aircraft (especially if you needed to extract the pilot).


Yes, but it proves my point they were used for firefighting and the rotor wash could blow out the fire.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I replied before seeing this post. You are correct, this link establishes what they are trying to do. PUSH the flames; they are not putting the fire out with rotorwash. I'm not sure what it has to do with this statement even if we were generously to grant that they put the flames out with rotorwash:

[quote=ULTIMA1]
No i am just stating facts about what happened with the engines.

And that the jet blast was more then enough to move cars and cause damage.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Yes, but it proves my point they were used for firefighting and the rotor wash could blow out the fire.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Ehh...I don't think the downwash from a helicopter is powerful enough to blow out a widespread fire. It's not concentrated enough. Like _Del_ said, it's enough to keep the fire from creeping towards the helicopter, but not enough to blow them out completely.

Maybe a smaller, localized fire.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Ehh...I don't think the downwash from a helicopter is powerful enough to blow out a widespread fire.


But we are not talking about a widespread fire, we are talking about an aircraft fire.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I find it hard to believe that a man of your supposed experience has never seen an a/c fire.
A minor fire does not require a helicopter. The helicopter makes it easier for personnel to get close to the cockpit to extract crewmen when the aircraft would be otherwise nearly engulfed. I have never seen a helicopter "put out" a fire with rotor wash. I have never heard an account of a helicopter putting out a fire with rotor wash. I have pushed the flame from a candle with a slight blow. I can put out the candle with a larger blow. I have never, even with all my hot air, moved the candle.


[quote=ULTIMA1]
No i am just stating facts about what happened with the engines.

And that the jet blast was more then enough to move cars and cause damage.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Helicopter rotor blades are basically small wings, to provide the lift.

As they sweep through a rotation they encounter a 'relative wind' (that is a term used in fized-wing airplanes....it is a description of the motion of the wing 'relative' to the air)

The angle of atttack is necessary to understand, since the higher the angle, the more lift is produced. (only up to a limit) Of course, high AOA, and more lift, means more drag....

Now....a chopper hovering, in calm air, will have all blades at the same AOA. When the 'cyclic' is used to put the chopper in, say, forward motion, things change. The advancing blade (left side) is now 'feeling' the effects of the forward motion ADDED to its motion as it rotates, and the retreating blade, just the opposite. SO....the advancing blades pitch angle is reduced (remember the AOA) and the retreating blade's is increased...that is the function of the swash plate, controlled by the cyclic stick, to continually adjust the AOA of the blades, at the pilot's command.

The 'collective' adjusts all blades equally, to provide control vertically...and the throttle is there, much like a motorcycle has the throttle in the handlebars.

The rotor blades disturb the air (rotor-wash) because they are producing lift...and that disturbed air tends to flow downwards....

Whew! Scares me, every time I see a chopper....looks like it's gonna fly apart into a million pieces at any second!!

There IS an old joke.....that it is basically a hundred thousand parts of a machine flying together in close formation....



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But we are not talking about a widespread fire, we are talking about an aircraft fire.


Ah. The picture looked like it was a wildfire.

It still looks like that the firefighting team was just using the downwash of the rotors to give them a buffer to operate in. The guys in the fire-resistant suits are still the guys putting the fire out.

The downwash just gives enough of a positive pressure that the fire doesn't move towards the guys on the ground.

I don't know how much of an effect direct downwash has on a fire that's burning fuel. If anything, it'll probably act like a bellows, feeding oxygen to the fire.

Still, a very interesting tactic.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I find it hard to believe that a man of your supposed experience has never seen an a/c fire.


Yes i have, i was a crew chief, trained to fight aircraft fires

But depending on the type of plane and the type of fire is not widespread.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
I find it hard to believe that a man of your supposed experience has never seen an a/c fire.


Yes i have, i was a crew chief, trained to fight aircraft fires

But depending on the type of plane and the type of fire is not widespread.



A minor fire does not require a helicopter to hover over the cockpit. The helicopter makes it easier for personnel to get close to the cockpit to extract crewmen when the aircraft would be otherwise nearly engulfed. I have never seen a helicopter "put out" a fire with rotor wash. I have never heard an account of a helicopter putting out a fire with rotor wash. I have pushed the flame from a candle with a slight blow. I can put out the candle with a larger blow. I have never, even with all my hot air, moved the candle.


[quote=ULTIMA1]
No i am just stating facts about what happened with the engines.

And that the jet blast was more then enough to move cars and cause damage.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
There IS an old joke.....that it is basically a hundred thousand parts of a machine flying together in close formation....


Ther is an old joke amoung people who worked on F-4s that landing one is just a controlled crash.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Ther is an old joke amoung people who worked on F-4s that landing one is just a controlled crash.


There are two jokes about the F-4 that runs in the aerospace engineering world:

That it was more aerodynamic if it flew backwards.

And that it was proof of the saying "if you add enough thrust, you could even make a brick fly".



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
There are two jokes about the F-4 that runs in the aerospace engineering world:


Yes know those well too.

We had some F-15 crew chiefs from Germany visit us in England. They had nice patches on thier uniforms that said "Eagle Keeper"

We joked with them that if we had a patch it would say "Pig Farmer"

or "Rhino Keeper"



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The F-4 was sometimes called a Rhino, because it was so tough.

I still think it's a sexy jet!!!

WW



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I found it shocking that the early versions of the F-4 didn't have any sort of gun. Until laser systems are made more powerful and compact, you need a gun on a fighter.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join