Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

page: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Temperature alarm settings are way below the point where damage occurs -


Well military aircraft i worked on an overheat condition was taken as very serious and cause for immediate landing and check of engine due to any possable damage to engine no matter how long the overheat was.




posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well military aircraft i worked on an overheat condition was taken as very serious and cause for immediate landing and check of engine due to any possable damage to engine no matter how long the overheat was.


But the engine was still able to perform its function until the aircraft had landed and the engine was shut down to do the inspection, yes? Warning alarms are always set to a sensor point well below where actual damage can occur. They are "warnings" after all. You would know when the engine itself failed because well...


I've read on other threads that you worked on RF-4Cs? Lets take this senerio:

The RF-4C is taking pictures into enemy territory. The engine overheat light comes on. Is the pilot going to do an immediate landing? I believe logically he would throttle back a bit and head towards the nearest friendly airfield (if it's as immediate a problem as you claim), yes? In the time it takes for him to get the RF-4C back on the ground, the engines themselves haven't exploded have they?

[edit on 14-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
But the engine was still able to perform its function until the aircraft had landed and the engine was shut down to do the inspection, yes?


But it was taken out of the speed/altutude that casued the overheat right away, not kept on speeding up.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
But the engine was still able to perform its function until the aircraft had landed and the engine was shut down to do the inspection, yes?


But it was taken out of the speed/altutude that casued the overheat right away, not kept on speeding up.


So you're expecting terrorists on a suicide mission to throttle back because the engine temperature warning light lit up? And because they didn't it was impossible for that engine to have been used?

Anyone else...um...get this logic here?

[edit on 14-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Temperature alarm settings are way below the point where damage occurs -


Well military aircraft i worked on an overheat condition was taken as very serious and cause for immediate landing and check of engine due to any possable damage to engine no matter how long the overheat was.

If the engine overheats it is bad. But on 9/11, it was not an issue because they only went full throttle and fast in the last 8 second of FDR information (for 77), and then the engine self destructed at impact and ignited the fuel vaporized at 500 mph.

Was the terrorist pilot going to write up the engines, but something got in the way?

What does a possible overheating engine have to do with 9/11?

Are you saying, the terrorists overheated the engines, panicked, and while trying to land hit the WTC and the Pentagon.

[edit on 14-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But it was taken out of the speed/altutude that casued the overheat right away, not kept on speeding up.


I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clear. Yes, the speed/altitude would have been reduced.

But the airplane didn't drop out of the sky did it?



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



I'm curious about this video then:
www.youtube.com...

32 seconds in.

Why didnt that high speed pass flip those small prop planes then? Or toss the people standing next to them?

Or is there a magic speed that these jet washes start.


Since when is a "high speed pass" conducted with the landing gear and flaps down? "Bitchin' Betty" will start complaining if you are doing more than about 200 knots with landing gear down.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by Disclosed
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



I'm curious about this video then:
www.youtube.com...

32 seconds in.

Why didnt that high speed pass flip those small prop planes then? Or toss the people standing next to them?

Or is there a magic speed that these jet washes start.


Since when is a "high speed pass" conducted with the landing gear and flaps down? "Bitchin' Betty" will start complaining if you are doing more than about 200 knots with landing gear down.


Sir, you know about 'bitchin betty'?

( I assume you aren't discussing my mum, since that's her name )

NO, I assume you have some experience with McDonnel/Douglas, especially when they designed the MD-80, but (out of my league) possibly some of their military contracts?

Funny thing is, on the MD-80...'betty' may have a few choice words....but when it comes to the GPWS, which you just refered to, there is no overspeed warning for the landing gear extended, sorry.

I made a mistake....you didn't refer to the GPWS, I did.

Thing is, 'bitchin betty' would say...."Landing Gear" when the throttles werepulled to idle, and the flaps/slats were extended, and the Gear was not yet down. (think of Star Trek, the computer voice, in a monotone...'landing gear')

Yeah, I know about the 'voice'.

Let's talk about an airshow, a high-speed fly-by, gear and flaps up....guess they certainly had to pull the GPWS C/B, doncha think?

Thanks for you post.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
So you're expecting terrorists on a suicide mission to throttle back because the engine temperature warning light lit up?


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, 15 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
But the airplane didn't drop out of the sky did it?


But you do not take any chances of destroying the engine before making it back either.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   
No, the jet blast was NOT more than enough to move cars and cause damage because it was too high. And anyone that knows planes knows that you are not going to instantly lose an engine after an overtemp, so is NOT risking failure because of it.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No, the jet blast was NOT more than enough to move cars and cause damage because it was too high.


How high was the plane when it hit the light poles ? Close enough to the ground for the jet blast to hit cars ?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
But the airplane didn't drop out of the sky did it?


But you do not take any chances of destroying the engine before making it back either.


'Think about what you just said for a minute....

Do you think a guy on a suicide mission about to die in less than a minute is concerned about the loss of an engine?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How high was the plane when it hit the light poles ? Close enough to the ground for the jet blast to hit cars ?


From the figure you provided earlier IE 20' diameter zone of high turbulence caused by the engines, how far above the ground was the plane in order to strike a light pole 7-8 metres (about 25') tall?

Even if we allow for the centreline of the engines being ~5' below the wing, ground based objects less than 10' tall are still safe going on your figure and that's assuming the plane is perfectly level with the ground at that instant.

Sure there'd be a lot of noise - witnesses had something to say about that at least.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Do you think a guy on a suicide mission about to die in less than a minute is concerned about the loss of an engine?


But he is concerend about making it, and does not want to fail.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Sure there'd be a lot of noise - witnesses had something to say about that at least.


But what about witnesses to the cars being rocked?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Why do you always completely disregard wake turbulence? And don't tell me that it's only bad in landing configuration. Wake turbulence is there in flight as well, which is one reason they keeps planes separated as far as they do. According to you the ONLY thing that could have rocked those cars was jet blast and wake turbulence is ONLY something to worry about if the flaps and gear are down.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But you do not take any chances of destroying the engine before making it back either.



For a normal person not looking to end their life, yes, I agree.

But remember, someone on a suicide mission won't care if the engine overheats during the last 20 seconds of its life.

Sure he wants to be able to make it to his target. However, can you show me proof a Rolls-Royce RB211-535 model turbofan engine overheated and was in danger of complete failure anywhere outside of the crash zone where momentum wouldn't have been enough to carry the B757 the rest of the way regardless of the engines failing?

[edit on 15-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Why do you always completely disregard wake turbulence? And don't tell me that it's only bad in landing configuration.


Well you and i both know that wake turbulence DECREASES as speed INCREASES. How fast was the plane at the Pentagon going ?

Oh and when i originally brought up wake turbulence in another thread i was called names and laughed at, now you want to keep bringing it up as the only thing that could have rocked the cars.



Originally posted by HLR53K
However, can you show me proof a Rolls-Royce RB211-535 model turbofan engine overheated and was in danger of complete failure


Why push the engines to overheat and possile damage if you did not need to?






[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. Airliners use turbofans, military fighters use turbojets. Fighters fly high to aviod SAMs and AA, not ground level like the plane at the Pentagon.

2. I guess you have not seen all the videos of airliners blowing cars and people around?

[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Fighters use both tactics, however, radar tracking doesnt seem to track as well when the target is closest to the ground, hence why they 'hug the terrain'.





top topics
 
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join