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: 44
1
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


This is what I've read on Reuters:


"At approximately 600 feet and two miles from touch down, the Autothrottle demanded an increase in thrust from the two engines but the engines did not respond," the Air Accidents Investigation Branch said in a statement."


The dual flame-out sounds like it fits.




posted on May, 18 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
There was a restriction at the High Pressure Pumps, but they still don't know what caused it. There is no evidence of ice, and the fuel remained above the freezing point for the entire flight, but the cavitation damage to the High Pressure Pumps is recent, and appears to have happened right at the end of the Incident Flight. There is no evidence of any kind of EMI or other problems, other than a fuel restriction of unknown cause. Both engines were still running at impact, they simply didn't respond to the throttles.

[edit on 5/18/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by HLR53K
 


Yeah, I remember reading that too....my first thought was 'Why are the A/T still engaged?'

The weather was VFR, correct? I always hand-fly a landing...usually just inside the FAF I like turn everything off, to get a good feel...and, if there's a flame-out, I'll know right away....(well, we'll all know, because the generator will drop off-line!!!)

That's why this one puzzles me...a dual, simultaneous flame-out would be indicated by the generators dropping off....shouldn't have come as any surprise to the crew. Very curious.

adding....the A/T also won't work after a dual GEN failure...they are powered by AC Bus 1 and AC Bus 2...not familiar with BA's procedures...perhaps they start the APU on final, to cover the Buses???

[edit on 5/18/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, I tell you what....I will go to L'Enfant Plaza tomorrow to search their archives on NW255


Thats ok. I am glad to see at least 1 believer thats not afraid to do research to find the truth.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Did you SEE the photo that HLR kindly provided?!? Please explain to us how that B737 hit FOUR light poles, and landed safely.


Very simple, aircraft that have engines on the wings will have a heavier wing. But that does not mean that it will survive hitting poles or walls.

Out of the 40,000 plus photos that the FBI has i have yet to see any of wing debris around the poles or around the Pentagon wall.



[edit on 18-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Again, I'm going to guess that the kinetic energies involved would leave only tiny pieces....well, saw somw photos of recognizable shreds, even with the AAL livery painted on them.

That's why I think that a hollow aluminum light pole that is designed to 'break-away' at its base would be like a toothpick to a B757 wing at 500MPH



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Very simple, aircraft that have engines on the wings will have a heavier wing. But that does not mean that it will survive hitting poles or walls.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


I just provided two pictures that clearly shows it can and did.



Originally posted by weedwhacker

Again, I'm going to guess that the kinetic energies involved would leave only tiny pieces....well, saw somw photos of recognizable shreds, even with the AAL livery painted on them.

That's why I think that a hollow aluminum light pole that is designed to 'break-away' at its base would be like a toothpick to a B757 wing at 500MPH


Exactly! They designed to break away when larger vehicles hit them. Significantly decreases the amount of damage to the vehicle and thus the occupants inside.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
That's why I think that a hollow aluminum light pole that is designed to 'break-away' at its base would be like a toothpick to a B757 wing at 500MPH



Originally posted by HLR53K
I just provided two pictures that clearly shows it can and did.


As shown at least 1 plane has been brought down by hitting light poles, and can probably find more.






[edit on 19-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   
WW, please read - www.abovetopsecret.com... . Last post on that thread.
Comment on that thread please.



Very simple, aircraft that have engines on the wings will have a heavier wing. But that does not mean that it will survive hitting poles or walls.

Engines on the wing actually makes the wings lighter as the engines counter act the bending forces created by the wing.
That's one of the reasons most aircraft use wing - mounted engines now.



As shown at least 1 plane has been brought down by hitting light poles, and can probably find more.

Yet one airliner, only slightly smaller than a 757, survives when hitting light poles when in flight. Hm?

[edit on 19/5/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, which airplane are you claiming was 'brought down' by hitting a light pole? You said you've shown 'at least 1'....which was it again?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, which airplane are you claiming was 'brought down' by hitting a light pole? You said you've shown 'at least 1'....which was it again?


It was Flight 255 that was broght donw by hitting a light pole, then it hit other poles and the roof of a building.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Ultima....No where in the NTSB report does it say that flight 255 crashed because the wing was seared off from hitting a light pole. Here is what it says regarding damage to the left wing after striking the pole.


The first officer of the Northwest airplane parked on taxiway “A” testified that flight 255 was intact until the left wing struck the light pole in the auto rental car lot. After the wing struck the pole, he saw what appeared to be “a four- to five-foot chunk of the wing section . .‘I fall from the airplane. He did not see any fire on the airplane until after it struck the light pole and then he saw “an orange flame. . . .I’ emanating from the left wing tip section.


Sure wing sustained damage but it was not severed as you said and also was not the cause of the crash as you also stated.

[edit on 19-5-2008 by Sway33]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sway33
Ultima....No where in the NTSB report does it say that flight 255 crashed because the wing was seared off from hitting a light pole. Here is what it says regarding damage to the left wing after striking the pole.


Well another report stated it was sheard. Als as the NTSB report states the plane was brought down because of hitting a pole.

Where do you thing the section of wing came from if it ws not sheared off?


[edit on 19-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Actually, from all the reports I've read on Flight 255, they say that it crashed because of a pilot error in setting the flaps and slats.

The airplane was at a very low altitude and in a deep stall. Not a good place to be for a deep stall.

There just wasn't enough altitude for the pilot to get the plane flying again. Maybe weedwhacker can confirm this, but the best way to get out of a stall is to point the nose down to lower the AoA so the separation of flow over the wings is less severe.

Even if it missed the light poles completely, it was going to come down onto the interstate.

[edit on 19-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Actually, from all the reports I've read on Flight 255, they say that it crashed because of a pilot error in setting the flaps and slats.


I will state once again, the plane was brought down after hitting a pole. Then it hit other polkes and the roof of a building.

Please read the report. How many time do i have to repeat it?
www.ntsb.gov...

The airplane collided with obstacles northeast of the runway when the left wing struck a light pole located 2,760 feet beyond the end of the runway. Thereafter the airplane struck other light poles, the roof of the rental car facility, and then the ground.


[edit on 19-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I've actually read the full report:
amelia.db.erau.edu...
It's the PDF version of the report being hosted on another server.

The NTSB concluded on page 67 under section 3.1 Findings, the following:

Flight 255 took off with its wing's trailing edge flaps and leading edge slats retracted.

The airplane's climb performance was severely limited by the flightcrew's failure to properly configure the wing for takeoff.

The airplane would have cleared the light pole by 500 feet with only its wings slats extended.

The CAWS unit's takeoff warning system was inoperative and, therefore, did not warn the flightcrew that the airplane was not configured properly for takeoff.


Under Section 3.1 Probable Cause, the NTSB states:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the flightcrew's failure to use the taxi checklist to ensure that the flaps and slats were extended for takeoff. Contributing to the accident was the absence of electrical power to the airplane takeoff warning system which thus did not warn the flightcrew that the airplane was not configured properly for takeoff. The reason for the absence of electrical power could not be determined.


So like I originally stated. The improper configuration of the flaps and slats were what caused the airplane to crash. Hitting the light poles was just an after-effect. There was no way the airplane was going to recover even if it missed the light poles.

Please open the PDF and read the actual report.

[edit on 19-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
So like I originally stated. The improper configuration of the flaps and slats were what caused the airplane to crash.


No actaually the improper configuration fo the flaps and slats caused it to hit the light pole and that CAUSED THE PLANE TO CRASH.

You even stated they would have missed the pole had the flaps and slats been in normal configuration.



[edit on 19-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
No. The plane was going to crash no matter what. Hitting the light pole was a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR to the crash, but no matter what happened, the plane was going to crash. Without flaps and slats extended on take off and landing, the plane must have a much higher speed to maintain flight. A speed that they couldn't maintain at that altitude.

But I guess the NTSB is wrong in stating the cause of the crash huh.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ok, lets eliminate the light poles from the equation for the sake of argument.

Are you telling me that with the airplane in the improper take-off configuration and without the computer to warning the pilots it was in an improper configuration, that Flight 255 would have continued flying with no problems?

Remember, it was rolling/banking anywhere from 15 to 35 degrees during its short flight in the air. While it was doing these rolls/banks, it had an AoA of upwards of 14 degrees (a loss of 20% lift).

[edit on 19-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, which airplane are you claiming was 'brought down' by hitting a light pole? You said you've shown 'at least 1'....which was it again?


It was Flight 255 that was broght donw by hitting a light pole, then it hit other poles and the roof of a building.



NO! ULTIMA!!!! Northwest 255 WAS NOT brought down from hitting a light pole!!!

Others are probably going to jump on this as well.....NWA 255 crashed because it stalled shortly after rotation. BECAUSE the Slats/Flaps were not set for Take-Off. If you had read the full NTSB report you would know this, and wouldn't be making a fool of yourself right now.

See? Picking a piece of a report means that you jump to the wrong 'conclusion'....

This accident was studied very extensively, and used in training classes to help illustrate how sloppy checklist procedures could lead to this kind of tragedy.

What was missing, for (still) unkown reasons, was the 'Take-Off' warning, as the throttles were advanced for take-off....in the MD-80, there should have beewn three electronic beeps, and the recorded voice saying 'Flaps'....followed by three beeps, and 'Slats'....over and over again.

Instead, at rotation, once the Nose Gear extended and the system recognized that it was in the flight Mode, and no longer in Ground Mode, the aural warnings started..."buzz, buzz, buzz....Stall".....repeated, along with the 'stick shaker', until impact.

The airplane was doomed the minute they lifted off....the airspeed was too low for its config....no Slats/Flaps....and the airplane was unstable. The light pole had NOTHING to do with that accident!!




top topics



 
1
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join