Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

page: 53
1
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


NO....ULTIMA....you are correct, the RAT is not the "main system" of the airplane...


Ya know, I once caught somebody, who tried to tell me he was a pilot, because he kept referring to the airplane as the 'aircraft'.

It has been my experience, that real pilots do not refer to what they fly as an 'aircraft'

This is how I caught the person, posing as a pilot, who was really only ever a Flight Attendent, in the lie.

Once I challenged him, he told the truth.

F/As are told to refer to it as an 'aircraft'. I know it is an 'airplane'. "Aircraft" is very generic.....an 'airplane' is specific. I won't bother, those who know, will understand the differences.

ULTIMA....you don't fly, you worked on them....the 'aircraft'.....and please remember, the term 'aircraft' is both singular, and plural, so please never add an 's' to the end of the word.....I hear this too often, in the media....it is an ignorance, when these people do it. You, ULTIMNA, haven't made that mistake, and you deserve credit for that!! Also, while I'm on about it....there is another term, which must be stricken from the lexicon!!!

The term is "tarmac"....I cannot abide it, it must be stopped!!!

"Tarred Macadam"....that is known in most countries as 'asphalt'. But this horrendous term has become synomous with Airport Operating Areas....even though they, the AOAs, are now concrete!!! The Runways are concrete! OK, taxiways are asphalt....but when an airplane is waiting for take-off, or waiting for a gate.....it doesn't 'sit on the tarmac'!!!!

Especially Heavy Jets!! Asphalt is soft....concrete is hard.....that's why Runways are made of concrete!!!!! If an airplne is sitting on a ramp, it's concrete!!!!

OK, rant over....just stop this 'tarmac' nonsense!!!!!!!

OK, rant really over......




posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
'pneudraulic' is indeed, an incredible newly coined word!! Never seen it before, nor shall I expect to see it again, except here at ATS!!


Actullay pneudraulic is not a new word, we were using back in the 80's when i worked on aircraft.


For ULTIMA....you don't seem to have read, earlier....(perhaps I wrote it on another thread) what a RAT is. RAT is an acronym for 'Ram Air Turbine'


Yes i do know what a RAT is. As stated it is not a main system it is a backup system for emergency use.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The landing gear struts are not a 'main system', and they certaintly aren't to any pilot.


Actullay pneudraulic is not a new word, we were using back in the 80's when i worked on aircraft.

T-28 has a 'pneudraulic', 'main' system in it, yet even when being indoctrinated to every little detail of the landing gear, I've never, ever, heard that term before. Please state things clearly before jumping the gun and claiming people were wrong.

[edit on 30/5/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
The landing gear struts are not a 'main system', and they certaintly aren't to any pilot.


Oh i believe the landing gear is a main system for the aircraft. I mean since it would be hard to move, takeoff or land without them.

en.wikipedia.org...

In aviation, the undercarriage or landing gear is the structure (usually wheels) that supports an aircraft on the ground and allows it to taxi.


www.answers.com...

The components of an aircraft or a spacecraft that support the weight of the craft and its load and give it mobility on ground or water.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
T-28 has a 'pneudraulic', 'main' system in it, yet even when being indoctrinated to every little detail of the landing gear, I've never, ever, heard that term before.


Well sorry but when i worked on planes in the 80s it was a well used term.

Besides what other term would mean a system that uses both pneumatics and hydraulics together?




[edit on 30-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Here it is again - surely this is actually on topic and deserving of a reply - all that trigonometry gone to waste otherwise.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Didn't i post a report about black boxes being switched before ?


I must have missed the report you posted that proves the black boxes from AA77 were switched and that's most likely due to the non-existance of such a report. I hope you noted what I said about the chain of custody that was maintained for such a vital piece of evidence and the NTSB has signed for its authenticity. You'll need some mighty good evidence to justify accusing NTSB of tampering with evidence and unless such evidence exists, this remains as positive evidence of AA77 having been destroyed by impacting the Pentagon.

Back closer to the original topic of jets disturbing the air and particularly the blast from the jet engines felt by occupants of vehicles when AA77 passed over head at an altitude of about 20' (~6m):

The plane had a -ve pitch of 5 degrees (nose down) so for any jet blast to reach the ground at that point, the dispersion angle of the blast has to exceed 5 degrees around the centreline otherwise it only reaches the ground when the plane hits the ground. So I'll allow for the dispersion to be 10 degrees which gives me a distance of some 35m past the cars before the blast actually hits the ground and at that distance, the even 10 degree spreading results in a diameter of the blast cone of 14m and a csa of about 154m^2 which compared to the diameter of the engine of approx 2m (3m^2) indicates the power of the blast will be approx 1/50th of what it is immediately behind the engine IE some 2%.

Also, at the point where the plane crosses the road at 6m altitude, the blast would be felt some 70m behind the plane, therefore hardly more than a gentle breeze using the same calculation as above.

Is there any better information I could use to refine this estimate?

I can produce a scaled drawing of what I'm pointing out here if it's really necessary - after all, the concept is very straightforward.


[edit on 30/5/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


He was talking about the struts themselves (as you had mentioned). The struts alone are not enough for a system. Add in all the other components and then you have the landing gear system.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I must have missed the report you posted that proves the black boxes from AA77 were switched and that's most likely due to the non-existance of such a report.


It was a law enforcement report about FDRs being switced. But we also have reports of FDR data being changed.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
He was talking about the struts themselves (as you had mentioned). The struts alone are not enough for a system. Add in all the other components and then you have the landing gear system.


Would you agree that the struts are the main part of the landing gear system?



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

It was a law enforcement report about FDRs being switced. But we also have reports of FDR data being changed.


Do you have any evidence of the FDR from AA77 being tampered with?
I'd really like to see that - it would definitely be dynamite.

Any comments on my estimates of the jet blast effect for the plane above the vehicles?



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Pilgrum, I have the NTSB reports, linked to me by Boone, of AAL 77 and UAL 93.

Not in front of me at the moment, but they are a read out of the AutoFlight System Modes, and the Navigational Receiver tuning data, from both airplanes...

I've looked through this data, and from my experience, since I have flown the B757, it all makes perfect sense.

As with all DFDR data, there is a timeline. Folks, this in not made up, the IRS knows what time is is, when it aligns before take-off, at the gate.

Once aligned, and iniatilized, the ACARS sends a message, to the Airline's computer, to 'upload' the Flight Plan into the FMS.

Once upoaded, we check it against the printed version that we have already picked up, from Dispatch, an hour or so before departure.

ATC may change aspects of our 'clearance', aka the flight plan, but usually only the TRACON departure info. When we get the 'PDC' (Pre-Departure Clearance) we check it against the Route that has already been uploaded into the FMS.

Sorry if all the acronyms are confusing, I tried to translate where needed.

Airline pilots will unserstand, though.....

I tried to 'dumb it down' to make it readable to everyone.....



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Would you agree that the struts are not the only part of the landing gear?

I would argue that what's attached to the struts that contacts the ground is just as important as the struts themselves. You can't land on just a strut alone can you?

If I just gave you the piston portion of the landing gear system, would you be able to make the airplane land safely without all the other components like the braces, trunion, brakes, etc.?

Some aircraft don't have piston-based landing gear and can still land perfectly fine.

I can take away the struts completely and attach the skids, wheels, or what have you directly to the bottom of the fuselage and still call it a landing gear system.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Would you agree that the struts are not the only part of the landing gear?


NO they are not the only part, just the main part. The rest of the parts are for support, operation and protection of the gear.

As for the wheel and tires they are important but can be interchanged with skids or other configurations.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Do you have any evidence of the FDR from AA77 being tampered with?
I'd really like to see that - it would definitely be dynamite.


911research.wtc7.net...

A source close to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) who asked to remain anonymous when asked about the " ongoing [black box] investigation, " told us that "the NTSB never closely examined the cockpit voice recorders (CVRs) and flight data recorders (FDRs) recovered from American Flight 77 which hit the Pentagon, and United flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania. " This, while the FBI has continued to quietly dodge vexing questions related to its prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and how the Bureau’s widely-reported inept and mishandled information protocol cost so many lives.

The source added that “the [CVR and FDR] tapes were sequestered by the FBI and quickly taken to its Quantico, Virginia labs where analysis was conducted solely under the Bureau’s influence in order to maintain complete control.” However, according to the individual with knowledge of the investigation, “there were a few NTSB officials allowed to observe, but their influence on the probe and tape inspection was minimal at best.”

We also talked to Michael Thompson, chief engineer in the CVR/FDR division of Allied Signal-Honeywell Corporation in Redmond, Washington -- according to his counsel, Mark Larson.

We asked Thompson if he was the person in charge of flight data recovery in the 9/11 investigation, since Honeywell manufactured the data recorders in operation on all four Boeing jets involved in the September 11 crashes. “I cannot answer that under advice from legal counsel,” he said.

Since his legal counsel, Mark Larson of Tempe, Arizona, was unavailable for a conference call, Thompson told us, “On advice of my legal counsel, I cannot answer any legal questions pertaining to that incident.” [On November 19, 2002 at 12:16 pm, Honeywell transferred our initial call to Mark Larson, corporate in-house counsel for Honeywell, who in turn told us to contact Michael Thompson regarding any questions we might have about the 9/11 CVRs and FDRs.]

When we asked Thompson if he had ever seen or been involved in any recovery analysis of the 9/11 CVRs or FDRs, he stated, “That’s a legal question, and on advice of counsel, I cannot answer any of those questions. You need to talk to Mark Larson about this.” [This surprised us, because we are aware that the memory chips from which the NTSB and/or FBI tapes are derived is raw data and cannot be manipulated. Thus, the “ongoing criminal investigation” excuse could result in either obstruction or suppression of fact.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I have read that story before and I don't see any evidence or even a claim of the data being tampered with. If you read the NTSB report released via FOIA you'll see that they extracted and analysed the FDR, all their results being turned over to the FBI. They also 'downloaded' the contents of the CVR but never indicated if anything was on it - it also was turned over to the FBI and their only announcement was something like 'we found nothing of significance' but that's open to much interpretation and maybe depends on what they were looking for.

Is there anything unusual about the FBI hording and concealing the evidence they collect?



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I have read that story before and I don't see any evidence or even a claim of the data being tampered with. If you read the NTSB report released via FOIA you'll see that they extracted and analysed the FDR, all their results being turned over to the FBI.

Is there anything unusual about the FBI hording and concealing the evidence they collect?


1. Did you also read John Lears commentabout the FDR being tampered with that i posted before?

2. Yes i have the NTSB CDs from a FOIA request.

3. There is something not right about the FAA, FBI and NTSB refusing to release certain information, like serial numbers for the planes.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Even if they can be exchanged, there still has to be something attached to the strut. Like I said, you can't land on a strut alone.

If you mean "main" as in the biggest part, then maybe. In some landing gear assemblies, the "shoe" which the wheels (in most cases) are attached to are actually bigger than the strut piston itself. And sometimes the wheel diameter are just as big too.

If you mean "main" as most important, than I would say no. The strut piston can be removed and have the landing wheel, skid, etc. attached directly to the fuselage.

As I stated before, all they do is absorb and dissipate the energy from the impact of landing. Airplanes have been landing just fine well before the piston strut was introduced to aviation and there are plenty of aircraft today that don't use them at all.

Either way, the strut is not the landing gear system itself.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Either way, the strut is not the landing gear system itself.


Well that was not the original question anyway.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

Since when are J79's turbo fans? They are two stage axial flow turbojets with variable stators but they are not turbo fans by any stretch of the imagination.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. Did you also read John Lears commentabout the FDR being tampered with that i posted before?


Actually yes, and in great detail as I said and at first glance there might appear to be some merit in the idea until the detailed info about how the data is recorded is studied closely. The NTSB has signed that report certifying the evidence as genuine and until that report is withdrawn, it remains as an official report certifying that AA77 impacted the Pentagon.



3. There is something not right about the FAA, FBI and NTSB refusing to release certain information, like serial numbers for the planes.


With your extensive experience in law enforcement (and presumably the investigation/prosecution side of things), how often does the FBI release evidence before the investigation is complete?
And even then, the public will only see what is necessary to produce in support of ongoing legal proceedings.

Is there a statute of limitations on the maximum period of time the FBI can hold (& not disclose) their collected evidence if legal processes do not require it?

I'm very hopeful that the current 'space-beam' cases will eventually bring some more of the solid evidence out in the open.






top topics



 
1
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join