New FDR Decode

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Back to the topic, no one answered me about my Warren Stutt questions... can anyone give me a couple of sentences explaining Warren Stutt?

Did you look into his website? He is an Aussie, like you!

www.warrenstutt.com...

Please, everyone click on the above website for proper comparison. The above website is a site used as gospel by those who make excuse for the govt story.

Now compare it to this.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Which all of the above can be verified here...

faa.gov...

"Warren Stutt's" decoded data also conflicts with these people...

ntsb.gov...

You decide.



[edit on 5-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by A W Smith

Originally posted by R_Mackey

By the way, has anyone yet informed Ryan Mackey at JREF that Boeings do not "typically cruise" above their Critical Mach? Not a very credible statement from someone claiming to be a NASA scientist.

Why don't you tell him genius? I mean you got all that credibility goin for ya? right champ?

en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia? Ahhh, no wonder Ryan Mackey made such claims. It proves he needed to look it up in Wiki.

Now try getting it from Aerospace sources.

First from Mackey....

"Boeing aircraft typically cruise above their critical Mach number..... Up at altitude, they cruise around 0.8 Mach or so all day long. This is done using supercritical wing design," - Ryan Mackey

And now reality...

"Several methods exist to reduce wave drag, including the use of swept wings, slender or thin bodies, and supercritical airfoils. These airfoils have critical Mach numbers very close to one (hence the term supercritical) thereby delaying and reducing the large increase in drag due to wave drag. " - aerospaceweb

"With the supercritical wing, a substantial rise in the drag-divergence Mach number is realized and the critical Mach number is delayed even up to 0.99. This delay represents a major increase in commercial airplane performance." - Centennial Of Flight Commission.

Source

Mackey is wrong when he claims .80M is above Critical Mach for a 757/767.

Click the above source link to find more from 757/767 Pilots.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by A W Smith

Why don't you tell him genius? I mean you got all that credibility goin for ya? right champ?

en.wikipedia.org...

Early transonic military aircraft such as the Hawker Hunter and F-86 Sabre were designed to fly satisfactorily faster than their Critical Mach number. They did not possess sufficient engine thrust to reach Mach 1.0 in level flight but could be dived to Mach 1.0 and beyond, and remain controllable. Modern passenger-carrying jet aircraft such as Airbus and Boeing aircraft have Maximum Operating Mach numbers slower than Mach 1.0 but they are routinely operated faster than their Critical Mach numbers.

Ouch. That's gonna hurt. Didn't the other PfT "experts", Kolstad and Rusty and whomever else those boys have on staff say that Boeing airliners didn't fly above Mcrit? Oh yeah...they did! I can't post that exchange since it is from a different "discussion" board, but they most definitely and in strong language said that Boeing airliners do not "routinely" fly above the critical mach number.

I guess we have to question Kolstad and Rusty and the others now about their aeronautical acumen. Maybe they aren't really pilots after all.

Chalk up yet another bullet to the increasing list of PfT "errors" in not only judgment but also aeronautical facts of fun and frivolity!

Originally posted by trebor451
Ouch. That's gonna hurt. Didn't the other PfT "experts", Kolstad and Rusty and whomever else those boys have on staff say that Boeing airliners didn't fly above Mcrit?

Not only do they say it, but your very own AZCat also says it.

Mmo .... it's related to the critical Mach number

Source


Wow, P4T says the same thing...

....Mmo is structured around Mcrit.....

Source


You may want to inform Ryan Mackey to stop getting his information from Wiki as .80M is well below Mcrit for a 757/767.

Originally posted by A W Smith

Modern passenger-carrying jet aircraft such as Airbus and Boeing aircraft have Maximum Operating Mach numbers slower than Mach 1.0 but they are routinely operated faster than their Critical Mach numbers.

A W Smith used the Wiki entry to source his information (above).

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Wiki pages also need to be sourced, right?

That particular excerpt from Wiki does not have any particular source listed for it and the only reference listed on the Wiki page is:

References
Clancy, L.J. (1975) Aerodynamics, Pitman Publishing Limited, London ISBN 0 273 01120 0

So, A W Smith is relying on the accuracy of an author of a 1975 book to prove the claim true.

It seems that trebor, the self alleged 25 year career veteran as a 'civil servant' for the government DoD, has sided with A W Smith, implying that the Wiki quote is somehow authorative and definitive:

Originally posted by trebor
Ouch. That's gonna hurt.
I guess we have to question Kolstad and Rusty and the others now about their aeronautical acumen. Maybe they aren't really pilots after all.

I have no technical knowledge about what's being discussed here. I'm just seeing a claim being made on the strength of a possibly unsourced Wiki article. Maybe it's right and if it is, then so be it. I stated that I don't know and I am certainly interested to know if it is correct or not.

weedwhacker? Tim, how often did you routinely operate your planes above their Critical Mach numbers? Give me a short, precise answer, rather than pages of off-topic resume building. I'm more inclined to believe your personal experience from your 20,000 + hours, rather than what might be sourced from a 1975 book.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Tezz,

If you read through this thread, you can clearly and quickly see how Ryan Mackey eventually became out of his element. He then, eventually, googled "Critical Mach", and clicked a Wiki hit. Mackey then took the first unsourced claim from Wiki which supported his claims and parroted it.

Since then (and during), P4T exposed his lack of knowledge on the topic using actual aerospace sources, and now I personally have used even his own peers quotes (AZCat) which contradict Ryan Mackey.

Ryan Mackey clearly did not understand Mcrit and looked it up on Wiki, fell for the bait, and further reduced his credibility. I think this is why Mackey refuses to debate P4T?

With that said, I am also interested in weedwhackers reply on this if he also feels .80M is above Mcrit on a 757, especially considering .78-.80 were/are the most efficient speeds for fuel economy.

Why did you break the link to your sources Rob? afraid the reader might see the quotes in full context?

history.nasa.gov...

Supercritical and area-rule technology: One of the more recent developments in transonic technology and destined to be an important influence on future wing design is the NASA supercritical wing developed by Dr. Richard T. Whitcomb of the NASA Langley Research Center. A substantial rise in the drag-divergence Mach number is realized. Figure 95(a) shows a classical airfoil operating near the Mach 1 region (supercritical- beyond the critical Mach number) with its associated shocks and separated boundary layer. Figure 95(b) shows the supercritical airfoil operating at the same Mach number. The airfoil has a flattened upper surface which delays the formation and strength of the shocks to a point closer to the trailing edge. Additionally, the shock- induced separation is greatly decreased. The critical Mach number is delayed even up to 0.99. This delay represents a major increase in commercial airplane performance.

Originally posted by A W Smith
Why did you break the link to your sources? afraid the reader might see the quotes in full context?

history.nasa.gov...

Supercritical and area-rule technology: One of the more recent developments in transonic technology and destined to be an important influence on future wing design is the NASA supercritical wing developed by Dr. Richard T. Whitcomb of the NASA Langley Research Center. A substantial rise in the drag-divergence Mach number is realized. Figure 95(a) shows a classical airfoil operating near the Mach 1 region (supercritical- beyond the critical Mach number) with its associated shocks and separated boundary layer. Figure 95(b) shows the supercritical airfoil operating at the same Mach number. The airfoil has a flattened upper surface which delays the formation and strength of the shocks to a point closer to the trailing edge. Additionally, the shock- induced separation is greatly decreased. The critical Mach number is delayed even up to 0.99. This delay represents a major increase in commercial airplane performance.

Links are fixed. Thanks for the heads up.

(edit: The aerospaceweb link is still 404 and will no longer let me edit the post. Here is the source link for aerospaceweb. www.aerospaceweb.org...)

You may want to read your quote more carefully, especially this part.

"Figure 95(b) shows the supercritical airfoil operating at the same Mach number.....The critical Mach number is delayed even up to 0.99. This delay represents a major increase in commercial airplane performance."

It's exactly what I quoted above.

The supercritical wing design does not allow "typical cruise" above critical mach. It delays critical mach closer to Mach 1. Ryan Mackey is wrong and so is the Wiki source from which he parroted.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

When are we going to see these stats, FAA, or Boeing specifications that
state the PA system sees 50 feet of additional error when hooked up to the
"tubes"

Let's see, I supplied links to anFAA calibration page showing the +/- 20 feet

Originally posted by R_MackeyThe reason the FAA gives a max requirement of +/- 75 feet error is mainly due to the fact you aren't always at the exact point on the field where field elevation is measured and recorded on the chart. It's also due to wear and tear. Over time, the aneroid wafers in altimeters wear, and therefore will not set to exact field elevation. This error does not wear/increase in one flight. It takes years for an aneriod wafer to wear. Therefore the same error at take-off is the same error applied throughout the flight. Once exceeding 75 feet, they then need to be either replaced or re-calibrated. Altimeters are required to be inspected and serviced every 24 months.

Hay TF,

Apparently you didn't digest the fact that your Master has corrected your misleading links regarding Altimeter SYSTEMS. It's 75' of error just as I said it was. Even student pilots know this from virtually the first day they fly. You're still showing your ignorance and intent to mislead with your out of context googleology links. The honorable thing to do would be to correct your misleading information putting it into context regarding an installed system, but I don't believe that will ever happen, will it?

Balsamo invents strawmen with his VSI/IVVI comments and speculates on that and the reason for the altimeter tolerance of 75'. He boasts that he or his cult doesn't speculate, but he proves that wrong when it's convenient for his argument.

As if that's not enough he has created an irrelevant off-topic diversion for the person he was pretending to be after he was exposed.

It's no wonder he uses a credible user name until he's been exposed and then creates a diversion/distraction. If I were Balsamo I'd want to hide behind some other name too! After all, he has no credibility and Ryan Mackey does.

I see we've evolved into the typical truther canard of "where's the serial numbers"? N644AA was tracked on radar from Dulles to the Pentagon, where that track ended. The FDR (found in the Pentagon) has the previous 25 hours of scheduled flights for N644AA and the DNA of the passengers aboard the aircraft was found in the building and identified. To continue to use the no serial numbers gambit is about as stupid as the flyover theory.

Well, on the other hand, just look at the track record of this and associated cults. It's then easy to understand why terrorist supporters and terrorist loyalists act the way they do.

Originally posted by turbofan
Let's see, I supplied links to anFAA calibration page showing the +/- 20 feet

reply to post by Reheat



Hay Reheat,

My "master" corrects nothing.

75 feet is a MIN. requirement for the instruments to be certified in a 757
passenger category aircraft.

The manufacturer must meet, or exceed this spec in order to "play the game".

You have no source for your 50' foot claim and it's getting old.

Futhermore , to expose your pure speculation, why don't you source
the FAA requirement for RAD Alt. and compare it to the system tolerance
by the Manufacturer.

There are HUNDREDS of parameters set out by the FAA that have a min.
requirement and have absolutely NOTHING to do with the system tolerance.

Produce your source for the 50 feet error below 1000 feet, or stop with
your anonymous 'expert' wannabe games.

dbl post

[edit on 6-11-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


I've swatted 3 big green flies already, here's the 4th one. Oh, BTW, it's not 50', I said 75' Max allowable and so did your chief!

Here's your introduction to the Aeronautical Information Manual.....

www.faa.gov...

3. Note the variation between the known field elevation and the altimeter indication. If this variation is in the order of plus or minus 75 feet, the accuracy of the altimeter is questionable and the problem should be referred to an appropriately rated repair station for evaluation and possible correction.

Fake R_Mackey,

Since you're not Ryan Mackey, I'm not inclined to call you that. Which would you prefer?

1. Poseur
2. Fraud
3. Rob

I'll go with #3 until I hear back from you. OK, Rob?

(Hey, Rob. "It's just a name"!!)

From: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by R_Mackey

@tomk

You may want to look up the term dihedral. The static port is below the wing chord. Period. If you still feel otherwise, please diagram a front view of the 757 showing the static port location "virtually" in line with the wings.

Since some are still a bit confused, the Baro Altimeter regulated by the ADC is very precise. This is why it is used for precision approaches.

You may want to look up the term "irrelevant". The dihedral is "irrelevant" to the relative position between the wings & the static ports. Since both the static ports and the wing ROOTS are fixed to the fuselage, and do not change. Regardless of the changing dihedral angle of the wings.

Since you appear buffoonishly incapable of conceding the slightest point (a characteristic that you - amazingly - share with Rob Balsamo), the image below shows both the (unmoving) wing ROOT and the static ports. The nice advantage of this image (over the ones that you offered) is that the decal stripes provide a nice elevation line to allow any child (or possibly even you, Rob) to see that they are at virtually equal elevations on a 757.

Location of Static Ports on a 757

See the bottom of the 3 decal lines, Rob? See how it passes JUST ABOVE the static ports? See how that same line also passes JUST ABOVE the wing root, Rob? See how that makes the static ports virtually in line with the wings. And not "under the wings" in the slightest?

Where do you think those static ports are when the nose of the plane is raised when the plane rotates for take-off, Rob? Do you really think that they will be "below the wings", Rob?

Tom

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by turbofan

 

I've swatted 3 big green flies already, here's the 4th one. Oh, BTW, it's not 50', I said 75' Max allowable and so did your chief!

Here's your introduction to the Aeronautical Information Manual.....

www.faa.gov...

3. Note the variation between the known field elevation and the altimeter indication. If this variation is in the order of plus or minus 75 feet, the accuracy of the altimeter is questionable and the problem should be referred to an appropriately rated repair station for evaluation and possible correction.

Here's the nail in the coffin for Reheat, Tom and all the other GL's who continue to lie. Notice how the FAA requirement and MFG spec is different?
Wonder why that is? You still care to relate your 50-75 foot error crap to the
MFG calibration tolerance?

Example:

Manfacturer spec for RAD Alt.
www.rockwellcollins.com...

Accuracy
0 to 500 ft
±2 ft or ±2%, whichever is greater

500 to 2,500 ft
±3%

FAA Min Requirement as Per Far 121, Appendix M. RADAR Alt.:

±2 ft or ±3% at, or below 500 feet.

±5% above 500 feet


Look it upTom, and Reheat. Be sure to come back and star my post when you're
done.

Same thing applies for Pressure Alt., and any other parameter.

once again, the FAA spec is a MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.

The Manufacturer MEETS, or EXCEEDS.

PA is +/- 20 feet below 1000 feet ASL

Produce a source for your claims other than my FAA link, or continue
being the anonymous 'expert' you are!



[edit on 6-11-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by tomk52
You may want to look up the term "irrelevant". The dihedral is "irrelevant" to the relative position between the wings & the static ports.

757 Diagram

Tom, Dihedral is very relevant.

Take that front view above, diagram the location of the static port, and draw a line from the static port to the tip of the wing parallel to the ground.

The static port is below the wing chord for the length of the wing and therefore in the high pressure zone. The static port is NOT in the low pressure zone above the wing, which is required for your theory. Pitch attitude does not matter as the static port will always be in the high pressure zone below the wing chord.

All else is off topic and unproven false accusations.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
I see Tom still hasn't read the Airdata And Calibration links provided for him numerous times.

You posted that link, in response to iSunTzu, here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You posted it, in response TO YOURSELF, here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You kids and your casual little insults & lies are bewildering to me, I gotta admit.

Nonetheless, I have read it carefully. And it simply reinforced the points that I made.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Tom, you are partially correct with respect to a Cessna 172. Most of the errors you express are carefully examined and minimized in plumbing chosen, length, location of ports. etc/

It's simple arithmetic to remove such errors once the variables are known.

Sorry, Rob, it is NOT "simple arithmetic to remove such errors".

Let's see if you can ACCURATELY define the math techniques that used to do this.

Let me help. They are called "e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ equations". And how do they typically generate them? And let's see you comment intelligently on their accuracies & limitations.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Over time, the aneroid wafers in altimeters wear, and therefore will not set to exact field elevation. This error does not wear/increase in one flight. It takes years for an aneriod wafer to wear. Therefore the same error at take-off is the same error applied throughout the flight. Once exceeding 75 feet, they then need to be either replaced or re-calibrated. Altimeters are required to be inspected and serviced every 24 months.

No, Rob. Anaeroid wafers do not "wear". They were specifically chosen for this application for two of their properties: 1. minimal hysteresis and 2) no friction. "No friction" means "no wear", Rob.

Now, the capsules can change calibration, but for other reasons. And the whole instrument can be jarred - suddenly - out of calibration.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Tom, how can a VSI be calibrated for instantaneous readings and free of errors, yet a PA be full of errors, when both sense pressure from the same static port?

Surely, you're not really posing this as some mystery, are you, Rob?

1. Your premise is wrong. NO instrument is "free of errors".
2. No instrument is "instantaneous", although electronics are fast enough to be close. Mostly, IVSIs are only "instantaneous" in comparison to the old style VSI's which depend on bleed orifices, and have significant lags.
3. Do you not know the difference between an absolute value and the "time derivative of that value" (aka "rate of change")? The absolute value can be wrong, and the rate correct. The absolute value can be correct & the rate wrong. Or both can be correct. Or both can be wrong. Did you never take freshman calculus or analytic geometry?


Tom

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Please, everyone click on the above website for proper comparison. The above website is a site used as gospel by those who make excuse for the govt story.

Now compare it to this.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Which all of the above can be verified here...

faa.gov...

"Warren Stutt's" decoded data also conflicts with these people...

ntsb.gov...

You decide.

That is a lie. Warren’s decode verifies the NTSB and is verified by the NTSB; they are the same. The NTSB gave Warren the data, they gave you the DATA. Warren decoded frames the NTSB gave him and the pilot for truth experts with stolen software failed to decode the missing 5 seconds. Warren must be a super expert programmer because he did what all your few experts failed to do. The extra seconds are there in the DATA from the NTSB, you have it but failed to decode it.

Your “expert” pilots support ideas on 911 found solely on opinions. You offer no theories and have no evidence. Warren decoded the seconds you said would not show 1.6 Gs, and sure enough the G forces required to hit the Pentagon are in the data you said did not exist. Your few pilots are verified by the FAA to be pilots not experts on 911 which they fail to understand based on the fact they deny 77 hit the Pentagon and have failed to prove it did not for 8 years.

Warren decoded the missing 5 seconds all your experts at pilots for truth failed to decode. The FAA says some of your fellow fantasy spreading members are pilots, not experts at anything.

Final seconds have negative pitch, no flyover. Final seconds have 61.5 degree true track, so there is no north of the CITGO fantasy.

Originally posted by tomk52
Nonetheless, I have read it carefully. And it simply reinforced the points that I made.

If you read it, you would know that it does not reinforce anything you have been saying and in fact proves how errors are removed from the static system during type certificate testing.

No,... Anaeroid[sic] wafers do not "wear".

Make a phone call and learn.

www.google.com...=en&q=duncan+avionics&aq=f&aqi=g1&oq=&fp=642c18fb4411ca2e

weedwhacker, do you agree that Aneroid wafers do not wear? Ever?

Perhaps you can answer that question when you answer if .80M is above critical mach for the 757 as claimed by Ryan Mackey.

@iSunTzu

The NTSB Flight Path Study and csv file provided by the NTSB claimed to be decoded by the NTSB from AA77 FDR, conflicts with Warren's data.

The software used by P4T to decode the FDR file was not stolen. Yet another unproven libelous false accusation from those who find anything to support their government dictated theory.

All else is once again off topic and personal attacks.