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: 26
1
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA....as to composition of the various components in an airframe....

You do realize that in commercial passenger jets, one of the biggest hurdles for designers and engineers is to reduce weight as much as possible, for fuel effiency reasons??

In a B757.....the landing gear is likely steel, for strength. Titanium is strong too, but more expensive. (Titanium is reserved for areas that need strength AND heat exposure...like in an ENGINE!!!)

Majority of airplanes, of the pssenger variety, are aluminum. There has been a trend toward composites, carbon fiber, epoxy composites, for wingtips and some flight control surfaces....strong, light, not weight-bearing components....

This idea of trying to lighten the airplane may have gone too far....the B787 is now running very late....Boeing has their hands full, on this one....

Problems in production are slipping delivery dates as much as two years!!! (Guessing Airbus/EADS are toasting!)

One major concern seems to be the design of the 'wingbox'.....a pretty critical component, of course, since it's the structural heart of the airplane, where the wing attaches to the fuselage. It's still not made of steel.....but the specs of the Aluminum thickness apparently were off....hence a full re-design. Scary, eh?

WW




posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Majority of airplanes, of the pssenger variety, are aluminum. There has been a trend toward composites, carbon fiber, epoxy composites, for wingtips and some flight control surfaces....strong, light, not weight-bearing components....


So you would agree then that a plane like a 757 would not be able to pentatrate a reinforced wall very far? I mean the nose of a 757 is composite, the rest of the plane is mostly thin aluminum.

Lets look at this source about the only part that was strong enough to pentatrate the towers.

www.tms.org...

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Majority of airplanes, of the pssenger variety, are aluminum. There has been a trend toward composites, carbon fiber, epoxy composites, for wingtips and some flight control surfaces....strong, light, not weight-bearing components....


So you would agree then that a plane like a 757 would not be able to pentatrate a reinforced wall very far? I mean the nose of a 757 is composite, the rest of the plane is mostly thin aluminum.

Lets look at this source about the only part that was strong enough to pentatrate the towers.

www.tms.org...

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage.





Nice complete subject change in an attempt to drag us back into "the plane wasn't strong enough to penetrate the building" argument.
Please don't anyone fall for this load !!!



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
It's the same sound bites played over and over in random order. Once you stamp out the flames of stupidity in one corner, he lights another one just to keep the conversation going and to obfuscate the fact his point was extinguished. When he runs out of things to light on fire he just re-ignites one of the previous points already battled (and lost)...



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
It's the same sound bites played over and over in random order. Once you stamp out the flames of stupidity in one corner, he lights another one just to keep the conversation going and to obfuscate the fact his point was extinguished. When he runs out of things to light on fire he just re-ignites one of the previous points already battled (and lost)...


Del....at the risk of repeating myself....thank you, thank you, for making me laugh out loud!!

You have to buy me a new keyboard now, since I sputtered Pepsi all over it (kidding).....

Really.....I haven't had such a good laugh in a long while....thanks!!

WW



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 




Couldn't have said it better myself.

Should we all lay this thread to rest? We've answered his question plenty of times over (as well as many other, unrelated questions).

If he refuses to listen, oh well. Good thing he's not in charge of anything important.


For the airframe only, I'd go more along the lines of:

76.5% Aluminum
15% Steel
8.5% Titanium

[edit on 2-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
It's the same sound bites played over and over in random order. Once you stamp out the flames of stupidity in one corner, he lights another one just to keep the conversation going and to obfuscate the fact his point was extinguished. When he runs out of things to light on fire he just re-ignites one of the previous points already battled (and lost)...


His infamous circular logic minus the logic



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Nice complete subject change in an attempt to drag us back into "the plane wasn't strong enough to penetrate the building" argument.
Please don't anyone fall for this load !!!


Nice way to try to misquote or twist my post. How did i change the subject?

In case you did not know we have been talking about the 757 that was suppoesed to have hit the Pentagon being able to penatrate the walls.



[edit on 2-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Once you stamp out the flames of stupidity in one corner, he lights another one just to keep the conversation going and to obfuscate the fact his point was extinguished.


The only stupiidity i see is people like you trying to run away from the facts and evidence that is brought up and to run away anytime anyone ask you for evidence.

Correct me i f i am wrong but we have been talking about the plane at the Pentagon being able to pentatrate the building so how did i "light another flame" if we have been posting about the same subject all along?

Can you at least try to have an adult discussion?



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
76.5% Aluminum
15% Steel
8.5% Titanium


Your numbers are way off, you are not even including the engeins that are a part of the airframe since they are internal.

Please show me your education and experience with an F-4 or any other aircraft.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Propulsion systems are not part of the airframe. The airframe consists of the main supporting structures such as ribs, longerons, frames, stringers, spars, any decking for avionics, and the such. I would add the skin in as many internal airframe parts do tie to the skin and use it as a loading path.

Whatever is left standing when you pull out the avionics, weapons, propulsion, human life support, etc. is what the airframe is.

Our CH-53K program breaks the helicopter down into the various groups such as structures, propulsion, airframe, human factors, mission systems, aerodynamics, testing, M & P (materials & processing), and many more teams. The propulsion group only deals with the engines and us in airframe only deal with the design of the structure itself (why have two groups if, as you claim, the engines are part of the airframe?).

Just like how the muscles in the body are what "propels" the body, but are not included as part of the skeletal support system.

Encyclopedia Britannica - Airframe

I stand by my rough estimate for the airframe alone. If you want to factor in the engines, then I would accept your rough estimate breakdown.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
And to tie in the F-4, 757 weights: the two engines on the 757 weigh between 15,000 and 20,000lbs depending on model. Empty weight on an F-4 is 30,000lbs. So "steel" or "steel/titanium" content (not percentage) is probably roughly the same.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Propulsion systems are not part of the airframe. The airframe consists of the main supporting structures such as ribs, longerons, frames, stringers, spars, any decking for avionics, and the such. I would add the skin in as many internal airframe parts do tie to the skin and use it as a loading path.

I stand by my rough estimate for the airframe alone. If you want to factor in the engines, then I would accept your rough estimate breakdown.



Originally posted by _Del_
And to tie in the F-4, 757 weights: the two engines on the 757 weigh between 15,000 and 20,000lbs depending on model.


Yes i know what make up an airframe but you have to consider the engines as part of the airframe on an F-4 when it impacts a wall because the engines are internal.

Unlike the 757 engines that are hung on the wings and would not be considered a facter in the airframe impacting a wall.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Good, but technically speaking, the engines still do not count as part of the airframe. In layman's terms, whatever's left to make the aircraft still keep its shape is considered the airframe. If you remove the F-4's engines, does the body collapse in on itself? No? There you go.

Let me ask you this. Do you consider the internal combustion engine of the car you drive as part of the car's structure? They are internal, but I bet if you ask any mechanic, he won't consider it part of the car's structure.

By your logic (anything internal is part of the airframe), then the computers, instruments, wires, hoses, clamps, stickers, the pilot, the pilot controls, the HUD, etc. would all be part of the airframe.

I invite you to ask any engineer or pilot (obviously other than yourself, as that is biased) as to what the airframe is.

I will correct you and say that it is the airframe and propulsion system that impacted the wall. The only question I have about that video is whether or not it was a fully intact F-4 that hit the wall (as opposed to gutted out and replaced with the equivalent weight in blocks of material).


As for the 757's engines, what difference does it make if the engines were external? They would have still impacted the wall. Just because of a difference in the placement of the mass, it doesn't decide whether or not it "counts". An impacting body is an impacting body as far as physics is concerned. The only difference is that the F-4 is a more concentrated mass (and thus force), whereas the 757 is more spread out.

Show me how mathematically how engines being hung under the wing makes it "not count" to an impact.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by HLR53K]

[edit on 3-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
As for the 757's engines, what difference does it make if the engines were external? They would have still impacted the wall.


Since the 757s engines are external on the wings they are not going not going to impact with the airframe, they are goinng to make thier own, different impacts.

Do you understand the difference?



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Since the 757s engines are external on the wings they are not going not going to impact with the airframe, they are goinng to make thier own, different impacts.

Do you understand the difference?


I understand what you are saying. We probably are talking about the same thing, just missing each other.

A technical correction for your statement though (which is what I think we separated).

In both cases (the F-4 and B757), the engines make the impact with the airframe. However, in the case of the B757, the engines make separate impacts with the fuselage because as you said, they are hung under the wings.

It's like hitting the wall with one big mass (F-4) as opposed to hitting it with a mass that's divided into two smaller parts and a larger mass (B757).

Or a very crude analogy is like shooting a wall with a big bullet (F-4) or shooting it with a shotgun (B757). We're on the same page now right?

[edit on 3-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
It's like hitting the wall with one big mass (F-4) as opposed to hitting it with a mass that's divided into two smaller parts and a larger mass (B757). We're on the same page now right?


The only problem with your statement is that engines on the 757 did not hit with the airframe at the Pentagon.

1 engine was torn off when it hit the generator trailer and the other engine would have hit the ground before impacting the building.

Also you have to rememebr that most of the time a plane hits anything the wings are sheared off and the engines are seperated.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

The only problem with your statement is that engines on the 757 did not hit with the airframe at the Pentagon.

1 engine was torn off when it hit the generator trailer and the other engine would have hit the ground before impacting the building.

Also you have to rememebr that most of the time a plane hits anything the wings are sheared off and the engines are seperated.



When I say "with the airframe" I mean more or less at the same time and eventually hitting the same object. So in this case, it'll be like a shotgun blast, but with one of the pellets ricocheting off of something before hitting the wall.

As a general statement for large commercial airliners, then yes the wings would shear off because the engines hang lower and dig into the ground. Though I have seen pictures of cases where the airframe remained intact.

As for smaller airplanes not having their engines under the wings, I have seen plenty of landings and crashes where the wings stay attached to the fuselage, but I know that's not what we're talking about here.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
When I say "with the airframe" I mean more or less at the same time and eventually hitting the same object. So in this case, it'll be like a shotgun blast, but with one of the pellets ricocheting off of something before hitting the wall.


Its just too bad we have no reports of parts found matching a 757 let alone Flight 77.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   
"I Kept Seeing the Burning Pentagon"....U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Chris Braman

The preceeding quote is from the caption of Mr. Braman's picture in Sunday's Washington Post, page C1, the Metro section.

It accompanies the article written by Washington Post Staff Writer Phillip Rucker, about the termination of the Survivors' Fund, and how after raising $25Million it helped the grieving, the distressed and the traumatized.

Mr. Braman was on scene minutes after AAL 77 hit, he worked for the next three days helping to carry 63 bodies from the building.

Now, he lives with his wife and three daughters in Alexandria, VA. The Survivors' Fund helped his wife with money to go to school and earn her nursing degree.

Braman was awarded the Purple Heart and Soldier's Medal, and he occasionally tours the country to speak about the experience.

Perhaps one or two of these 'truthers' should get off their butts and come to Alexandria, or perhaps to one of his speaking engagements.

WW



[edit on 5/4/0808 by weedwhacker]




top topics



 
1
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join