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: 25
1
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
But we all knew that some steel had to reside in it, there was no question in that.


A good percentage of the F-4 was steel and titanium.

Titanium was still new at the itms and the F-4 used a good percentage at the time. The only planes that had more was the MIG-25 that was 80% steel and 20 % titanium., and of course the SR-71.

Also composites were new so not a lot was used on the F-4.




posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
You're ignoring the fact it was built "mostly" out of aluminum. In fact, you've curiously dodged the aluminum content altogether.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
You're ignoring the fact it was built "mostly" out of aluminum. In fact, you've curiously dodged the aluminum content altogether.


NO, you are ignoring the fact that i proved there was a good percentage of steel and titanium in the plane.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
You're ignoring the fact it was built "mostly" out of aluminum. In fact, you've curiously dodged the aluminum content altogether.


NO, you are ignoring the fact that i proved there was a good percentage of steel and titanium in the plane.



I'll ask one more time...what does any of this have to do with the theory that short lived engine over-temps proove a 757 did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11?

Kind of funny when the OP takes his own thread off-topic.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Kind of funny when the OP takes his own thread off-topic.


I did not take it off topic, only answering the off topic questions.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


No one questioned there was steel and titanium in the airframe. Sounds like a pretty hollow victory if you're keeping score...



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
No one questioned there was steel and titanium in the airframe. Sounds like a pretty hollow victory if you're keeping score...


The why even post a debate if you agree with me that the there is a good percentage of steel and titanium in the plane?



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Because NOONE said there was no steel or titanium involved while you said over 50% of the plane was steel. Do you see the discrepancy here?



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
OMG!!!

What does any of the foregoing have to do with the jet engine simulator??

Anyway, I like to build models.....I built a 1/32 scale F-4 for an FAA guy many years ago....I was 21 years old....he flew with me and gave me my ATR....(now called an ATP)...and no! I built the model AFTER the checkride....and, I know....the minimum age for an ATP is 23, but back then there was a waiver system....so I was 'grandfathered'....passed the written, and the practical, but until I turned 23, it was moot....but it showed I'd already qualified.

His name was Al Ruggierri (sp?) and was an FAA Examiner, I believe from the SMO FSDO....he smoked a pipe. (I'd imagine, after all these years, he's definately retired, possibly passed...)

He loved the F-4, thought it was sexy....and so do I. I plan to build another, once I get the kit out of storage....1/32 scale, again....big, hard to take care of...but I love it!

WW



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Actually, you still haven't proved that there is a good percentage of the plane being steel.

We know from Boeing's website that the F-4 Phantom II had no more than 8.5% of the structure by weight in titanium.

And you have nicely skipped over my simple request of you to cite the source you wrote. I'm assuming you're skipping them because I made a good point and you don't want to draw attention to it.

I still have not seen hard, physical evidence that the F-4 Phantom was mostly made out of steel. Show me a source with some percentages. I find it hard to believe that the aviation industry would reverse its course of using aluminum for lighter aircraft so they can get more performance out of them.

Also, for being operated in a high-salt environment, I find it improbable that the engineers would use steel because, guess what? Steel corrodes in that kind of environment. Very, very quickly, not matter how you try to protect it (water will get in). To build an airframe that dissolves in the operating environment? Yeah...

We all know composites were used very little or none at all because that technology didn't explode until more recently.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
But we all knew that some steel had to reside in it, there was no question in that.


A good percentage of the F-4 was steel and titanium.

Titanium was still new at the itms and the F-4 used a good percentage at the time. The only planes that had more was the MIG-25 that was 80% steel and 20 % titanium., and of course the SR-71.

Also composites were new so not a lot was used on the F-4.



We've posted multiples sources showing you're wrong. Unless you can post an official source stating what you're claiming, I suggest we all stop responding to this particular subject as it has become pointless. He is wrong-DONE.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
His source earlier was Jane's. It reads verbatim out of the F-4 entry. Jane's is pretty authoritative, I would argue. It fails to show that the steel was the majority of content, however.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Ahh, you have access to Jane's?

Anyone know someone who works at Boeing? Could just ask them. I'm sure it's not a security issue anymore and their archives should have the information.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
And you have nicely skipped over my simple request of you to cite the source you wrote.


My source was a government source, but if you did any reseaarch you could find other sites that will show the same basic information.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
His source earlier was Jane's. .


No it wasn't, but Janes has basically the same information.

I proved the original point that the F-4 could not be compared to the 757 in crashing into a wall.

END OF STORY.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
His source earlier was Jane's. .


No it wasn't, but Janes has basically the same information.

I proved the original point that the F-4 could not be compared to the 757 in crashing into a wall.

END OF STORY.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


No, you didn't.

ULITMA, you post nonsense.....and you duck and dodge.

An idiot can call out another idiot....hey! I'm not making fun of another ATS member, if I call myself an idiot!!!!!!

I'm an idiot! I think UFOs are from other planets. Hence, I'm an idiot!

So, I can speak to another person, on ATS, from the same perspective.

I'm an Idiot....but I still think UAL 93 crashed in Ohio....so now what do you want to call me????

WW



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

My source was a government source, but if you did any reseaarch you could find other sites that will show the same basic information.



I actually found his source:
www.airforcebg.com...

Government site eh? Your paragraph is word-for-word out of the "Structure" section.

Oh nos, did Ultima just...lie about his source?


I talked to a classmate of mine that works for Boeing. While he couldn't get specific numbers (that would just look suspicious), he talked to some of his friends who were in the Air Force and confirms that the airframe was constructed like we said:

8.5% titanium (per Boeing's website), with the rest being mostly high-strength aviation grade (I'm assuming 7075) aluminum with steel parts here and there for reinforcement of key load paths. But hardly all-steel. He agreed the weight would have been much higher.


The MiG-25, as Ultima pointed out, was mostly nickel-steel alloy and that monster weights 60,000 lbs.. Take a chunk out for the engines, but it still weighs almost double of the F-4. If the F-4 was all-steel, we would expect to see similar weights.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by HLR53K]

[edit on 2-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
And you have nicely skipped over my simple request of you to cite the source you wrote.


My source was a government source, but if you did any reseaarch you could find other sites that will show the same basic information.



I demand to see evidence that Jane's subsidiaries work for the government... Your "quote" is verbatim from the Jane's entry.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I actually found his source:

The MiG-25, as Ultima pointed out, was mostly nickel-steel alloy and that monster weights 60,000 lbs.. Take a chunk out for the engines, but it still weighs almost double of the F-4. If the F-4 was all-steel, we would expect to see similar weights.


1. No you did not find my source.

2. I never stated the F-4 was all steel.

I even gave the following numbers and left the aluminum number higher in another post and would still like to see you compare them to a 757. (These numbers are including estimate of engines)

Aluminum - 50%
Steel - 40%
Titanium - 10%

Do i need to compare these numbers to a 757 or can you figure it out yourself.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I demand to see evidence that Jane's subsidiaries work for the government... Your "quote" is verbatim from the Jane's entry.


It might be verbatim but i did not get it from Janes.

I have access to several sources you probably do not.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join