New FDR Decode

page: 32
12
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by tezzajw
Noting that the wing tips do flex in flight and would generate a minor amount of error, unless the FDR can also read the angle of flex in the wing.


Good point tezz. I believe someone figured the numbers awhile ago regarding dihedral alone with respect to the VDOT "scuff". If the right wing tip made the scuff, the engines should have been dragging the ground, sucking in Lloyd and his cab along the way, and the wing should have also taken out the Highway sign between the VDOT and pole 1, due to dihedral only, no flex was calculated. Incorporate flex and it's worse. The engine is under the bridge.


How did they work out the numbers long ago when we just now got the numbers from the FDR on this segment of the flight? There perhaps was a slight change in altitude perhaps by a incompetent pilot thinking he is about to smack the ground instead of his target? So many questions, yet so few real answers.




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
weedwhacker,

The purpose for my reply to Will is to once again demonstrate the lack of knowledge of flight dynamics shown by those who claim to have all types of superior expertise and ridicule others based on it, when in fact they are completely wrong. In other words, as you agree, aircraft fly sideways all the time, it doesn't have to happen in an alternate universe.

Will reminds me of the posters out there who ridicule others for their typos because they cannot debate the topic, yet misspell every other word in their reply.

Now for the significance.

A 1 degree difference equates to a more than 2 foot "swing" difference in wing tip position. Even more for the tail. The crab is actually closer to 2.4 degrees IIRC, based on the data.

This must be taken into account when attempting precise measurements such as a 757 wingtip "scuff" on half of a pole which perhaps has a 6 inch diameter.

This is why tezzajw has been emphasizing the aircraft position in space, while Will has been incorrectly refuting such a notion as Will thinks all aircraft travel in the direction which the nose is pointed and therefore any single point on the airframe can be used for such a measurement. Will is wrong. The icing on the cake is when Will attempts to ridicule others from his pompous perch while being so wrong.

Also, for those who claim the "singed" tree was sucked into the right engine, please let us know where this is reflected in engine parameters.

Once again, no one here has provided any proof for the impact theory claims.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by R_Mackey]


And, once again, instead of simply stating the facts CLEARLY & moving on, you turn it into a childish game of BS aviation trivia.

The wind correction angle is irrelevant.

A 465 kts 070° velocity with a 5 kt 330° wind brings gives you a 1° WCA. (nearest degree.)
at 10 kts 300° wind still gives you 1°.

WCA computer

You are also FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG when you calculate it. The underlying assumption to WCA is that you are trying to maintain a definite ground track, either between waypoints or over the centerline of a runway.

Hanjour was trying to do neither. He was simply trying to hit the building in front of him. The only info that matters is the rudder position and plane's airspeed.

At those plane speeds & wind speeds, the WCA disappears into the ROUND-OFF ERROR of the plane's headings.

Shall we now break into a "Balsamo don't know squat because he can't even calculate a WCA correctly" chorus? That is PRECISELY the sort of childish nonsense that YOU would exhibit, Rob. Good for the goose...?

TomK

[edit on 25-11-2009 by tomk52]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
The real world states that your analysis has no room for error.


No sir, that is the Land of Oz, not the real world.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by R_Mackey
 


You are correct, even with the model plane analogy, but only when you consider wings that are 'straight out' to begin with.

Like, your Cessna or Piper, for instance.

However, I contend that --


The effective wingspan/wing length along a course will never increase when the aircraft is askew as compared to a course with zero wind. The effective wing length with repect to the damage path will decrease with any crab angle.


-- fails to take into account the wing sweep.

Those of us who have flown Transport Category jets with swept wings know that the wing tip seemingly increases its reach as the airplane pivots about a vertical axis. This is why there are published minimum clearance numbers for for turns on the ground...the mechanical effect of the wing tip reaching beyond its own 'shadow' as the airplane is turned. IOW, IF you measure the span perpindicular to the fuselage centerline, on a B-757 you would get a value of 62' 5" (based on the overall published W/S of 124' 10").

However, IF you measured along the leading edge, from the wing root to tip, you will have a different value.

Boeing AFM has the drawings, showing the radii and increase in wingtip 'reach' for tight radius turns on the ground. Of course, it's based on the center of the pivot point, which would be roughly the center of the circle described by the inside main gear, in the turn...but, that's getting esoteric, and not relevant.

Inflight, the 'center pivot point', as in a crab for wind, relative to the ground, is probably going to be somewhere between the CG and CL. I'm not an aeronautical engineer, perhaps some reading this will wish to chime in?

But, in layman's simplified terms, if you visualize the side view, there are two downward forces, and one upward force acting on a conventional airplane in flight.

Weight, of course, through the CG, combined with the downward force provided by the horizontal stabilizer. The CL (Center of Lift) is the 'supporting' force, provided of course by the primary lifting surface (Wings). The CL, in a stable weight and balance configuration, must always be behind the CG. This relationship defines the Flight Envelope for balance purposes...a CG too far aft results in stability problems. Too far forward is undesirable as well...issues with pitch control, for instance. Also, it is less fuel efficient.

tezza very adroitly mentioned the possible wingtip flexing...that wil have to be considered and calculated.

I do not recall how high off the ground the 'scuff marks' on a light pole were observed. Any numbers on that? Because, it could be something completely unrelated to the AAL 77 flight. This is why good research, and less innuendo, is warranted.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
How did they work out the numbers long ago when we just now got the numbers from the FDR on this segment of the flight? There perhaps was a slight change in altitude perhaps by a incompetent pilot thinking he is about to smack the ground instead of his target? So many questions, yet so few real answers.


That kind of contradicts this statement below:


Originally posted by 911files
There is only confusion among CT forum 'experts' who have no clue what they are talking about.


You may want to think who's confused. It's ok to admit that you are, 911files. cesura surely must be, unless he really believes that a single point and a velocity vector are enough to model a flight path.

I'm confused, I don't know how to read a FDR!



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
Like me, he has stated over-and-over that we deal with the plane as a point-source and reference from the center-of-gravity (since in physics terms any object will obey the same Newtonian principles).

Your analysis is possibly flawed before you begin, 911files. Save yourself the months of research and stop right there to think about what you plan to do.

The aeroplane can not be considered as a single point, when you are dealing with distances that span a few metres (to strike the five light poles).

You have already stated that you're waiting for Stutt's roll values in the next decode. Why do we need roll values, 911files? We need them, along with the pitch and yaw to know where all of the other coordinate points on the aeroplane are located.

Take your time, get it right. But, please... don't treat the aeroplane as a single point and a velocity vector...



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
-- fails to take into account the wing sweep.


Weedwacker,

There were poles on both sides of the aircraft. If you increase your right wing, you just decreased your left wing "length". You missed the poles on the left side. You need to hit them.

We are not taxing an airplane here ensuring wing tip clearance of one wing. Wing tip to wing tip is a straight line. When that line becomes a hypotenuse due to a crab angle, the effective wingspan along the path is now less. This is basic trig. You can use the same experiment with your model airplane with any sweep you want. When you twist the plane any amount of degree, it will no longer touch BOTH pens.

You also may want to inform TomK winds are given as true. lol

Also, its better to look at the FDR data for crab angle, you don't even need a WCA calculator nor estimate winds at the time the data was recorded.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by R_Mackey]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by cesura
That would be true if we were modelling a video game or
alternative Truther universe in which aircraft can fly
sideways or otherwise perpendicular to the direction in
which they are pointed.



This must be a "truther" world or alternate universe.



No, it's just a crosswind approach and landing attempt at Hamburg.


It's called a crab angle. Aircraft fly "sideways" all the time.

Also, the data from the FDR shows this as well, of course not as extreme, but the winds were a direct crosswind. The nose is not pointed in the direction the aircraft is traveling. tezzajw is right. You are wrong, as usual Will.

Just more examples of the lack of understanding of flight dynamics by those who make excuse for the govt story.


Originally posted by cesura
When you or your fellow agents of disinformation think
you have scored a major point by saying the plane could
have been flying sideways, there is indeed little hope
for a sensible thread.

Will


Here is more "disinformation" from an "alternate universe", according to Will.



Will, you haven't a clue what or who you debate. This is why you refuse to bring your BS directly to P4T.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by R_Mackey]


A PERFECT example of how you intentionally mislead, Rob.

Why don't you show a landing with appropriately proportioned plane air speeds & cross wind components?

And show the consequent WCA. The ONLY WCA that matters: the one exhibited by AA77.

For a 110 knot landing speed, that'd give you an equivalent crosswind of (110/465)*5 Kts =1.2 knot cross wind. With "gusts" to 2.4 kts, no doubt.

C'mon, Rob. Show the 757s landing in those big ole 2 knot cross-winds. Again, less than 1° of crab angle.

Be HONEST for a change.

Oops. Forgot who I was talking to...

TomK

[edit on 25-11-2009 by tomk52]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by R_Mackey
 


I'm trying to give some background, to illustrate for others what is not immediately obvious, concering wingtip 'reach' on swept-wing jets.

BUT, and this is a big but, that really only matters IF we're talking about trying to hit (or not hit) something with the tips. Any of the light poles struck further in, along the LE towards the fuselage, and 'crab' angles become moot.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
BUT, and this is a big but, that really only matters IF we're talking about trying to hit (or not hit) something with the tips. Any of the light poles struck further in, along the LE towards the fuselage, and 'crab' angles become moot.


Before I ignored 911Files, I recall he measured the damage from pole 2 to the VDOT "scuff", it barely reached. This caused tezzajw to inquire regarding spatial orientation of the aircraft and for censura and 911files to prove their points with actual data. Instead they have made excuses for several pages of why only one point on an aircraft is needed for the measurement, with margin for error.

They have been proven wrong, again, combined with the fact they still do not understand aircraft axis nor vectors with respect to aircraft acceleration measurement.

If they wish to hold onto their theory, there can be no margin for error. As tezzajw has stated, either the poles were hit, or they were not. Pitch, roll, yaw, crab, angle of attack, wing flex, etc, all need to be taken into consideration.

censura/Will/Claimed MIT PhD disagrees due to the fact he feels aircraft can only fly sideways in an alternate "Truther" universe and that aircraft always fly where the nose is pointed in the real world. Once again, censura has been proven wrong.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by R_Mackey
 


I'm trying to give some background, to illustrate for others what is not immediately obvious, concering wingtip 'reach' on swept-wing jets.

BUT, and this is a big but, that really only matters IF we're talking about trying to hit (or not hit) something with the tips. Any of the light poles struck further in, along the LE towards the fuselage, and 'crab' angles become moot.


And good background it is too. Likewise, the only reason I 'waste' my time with some of the foolishness going on here is because some people really want to know and can sort out fact-from-fiction.

As Rob pointed out (with my recorded conversation with Craig), I do believe the government (or some agencies) are continuing to cover-up some aspects of what happened. So I approach everything from that veiwpoint. I am also convinced that the early releases by the NTSB of an animation showing the wrong heading and an incomplete output of the FDR was to feed the crazy CT theories so that any questioning could be thrown into the looney bin with them.

However, that does not mean that "911 was an inside job". My alter-ego on the 911 Commission believed that the agencies were less than forthcoming as well, but sees it more of a CYA effort than something more sinister. You should try to run down the 'missing videos' with the DoD and FBI sometime. I spent two years of my life going back-and-forth with them and the best I could get out of them was a ping-pong ball game. I did manage to get a few extra videos (such as the DEA footage).

I'm not saying the NTSB altered the data (which maybe they did, maybe they didn't), but I think they deliberately avoided answering questions regarding the oddities just to provoke some in the CT area. So, if I was a truther (which I was) I would point out (which I did) that P4T and CIT are pushing the 'disinformation' and generating deliberate confusion to keep people from focusing on the real issues? Like why did Langley AFB 'destroy' their ATC record? Why did ZDC not begin a primary target search after being instructed to do so? How is it that a very strong 757 primary target crossed the approach path, did a 2D 'near collision' with a smaller plane, and somehow go unnoticed for almost 8 minutes before being seen?

So many questions, so few answers, but what happened to AAL77 is not among them (except a few minor details which may never be).

[edit on 25-11-2009 by 911files]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
I'm not going to take the time to do it, but someone might want to calculate the kinetic energy of a Boeing 757 moving at 450 knots and compare it with the break-away force given for the pole. I suspect that once compared the acceleration component of the break-away force would not be significant enough to even move the 'needle' 0.001 g's. The 'normal' variation for the final minute is ~0.06 g's, so unless the acc component is greater than 0.03 g's, it might not even register as an anomaly.

We can estimate an upper bound as follows, with the
understanding that the observed effect is likely to
be less, and quite likely much less, than the upper
bound.

The plane weighs roughly 200,000 pounds. Let's say
it hits two or three light poles within a 1/4-second
interval, with a total mass of 1000 pounds. For the
upper bound, let's suppose the light poles are hit
smack in the middle and are strong enough to be
accelerated to the plane's velocity before breaking
or being thrown to the ground, where the ground
absorbs their impact until their velocity returns
to zero.

With those (implausible) assumptions, conservation
of momentum says the plane will lose about half of
one percent of its speed during that quarter second.
The last recorded airspeed was 483.5 knots, which is
a little over 800 ft/sec, so our upper bound for the
delta-V caused by impact with multiple light poles
is about 4 ft/sec. That corresponds to an average
of 0.5g for 1/4 second, which would be large enough
to register on the longitudinal acceleration if the
recorded accelerations are averages.

Being physical devices, all accelerometers perform
some averaging, but some have much faster transient
response than others. For this application, I would
hope the designers would have chosen accelerometers
that would average over time scales on the order of
the sampling rate, but there's no guarantee of that.

I'm pretty sure the light poles would have broken
off before attaining the speed of the aircraft, and
light poles struck near their tops would be expected
to register only half as much deceleration as poles
struck in the middle (because the bottom of the pole
would remain more or less stationary).

It seems to me that the light poles have not yet
been ruled out as a contributor to the approximately
0.1g to 0.2g dip in longitudinal acceleration at
t = -0.75 seconds.

If the accelerometers' transient response is so fast
that they should be expected to miss the impact with
the light poles, then the instantaneous deceleration
they would have recorded in the unlikely event that
they actually did record the impact with the light
poles might be greater than calculated above, and the
last recorded longitudinal acceleration might be an
impact with light poles. But that's highly unlikely.

Will



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Pitch, roll, yaw, crab, angle of attack, wing flex, etc, all need to be taken into consideration.


Balsamo,

You might want to pass these requirements on to Turbofan before he goes and makes another simulation of what *he* thinks the plane would have done to the light poles.

I tried to explain this to him months ago but he still claims to know precisely where the aircraft hit the poles and the resultant action of the light poles.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Let me get this straight, 911files...


Originally posted by 911files
I do believe the government (or some agencies) are continuing to cover-up some aspects of what happened.

So you agree that there is some kind of conspiracy that's obscuring some aspects of 9/11 truth. In essence, that should make you a truther, wanting to know a truth that you believe has not been told.


Originally posted by 911files
So, if I was a truther (which I was)

If you're not a truther, then why do you still believe that the truth is being covered up?


Originally posted by 911files
Like why did Langley AFB 'destroy' their ATC record?
Why did ZDC not begin a primary target search after being instructed to do so?
How is it that a very strong 757 primary target crossed the approach path, did a 2D 'near collision' with a smaller plane, and somehow go unnoticed for almost 8 minutes before being seen?

Asking questions is a primary way of seeking the truth.
But, wait... you just stated that you're not a truther.
But, wait... you're asking questions that are relevant to finding the truth.


Originally posted by 911files
So many questions, so few answers,

But if the truth was known, there wouldn't be any need for questions. Why are you asking questions, looking for the truth, if you stated that you are not a truther?


Originally posted by 911files
There is only confusion among CT forum 'experts' who have no clue what they are talking about.

You have a few questions that are unanswered and you doubt the NTSB data, but you claim that you're not a truther even though you ask questions like you are one. How does that work?

The confusion in this thread is spreading thick and fast, 911files. I'm certainly confused. I don't know what you are or claim to be. You don't appear to know what you claim to be either.

A non-truther who asks questions to try and find the truth?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Hey trebor/Pinch/William Paisley,

How did it feel to get spanked by Kolstad via email? Yes, I saw the emails, typical trebor/Pinch/Will Paisley. A person who never amounted to anything but a RIO and never made it to Top Gun. To top it off, a civilian washout.

Instead of spending your Thanksgiving on ATS ranting about the CS1, which has nothing to do with this thread nor is posted on the P4T website, thank your lucky stars you still have a job, for now. lol



Your pompousness is noted. May I suggest you read the works of Tony Szamboti. Unlike you, he is a structural engineer. If or when you graduate from college maybe have a discussion with him or Richard Gage or the other 5000 members of AE911truth. Until then, it best you keep your opinions to yourself. you only make yourself sound foolish.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Let me get this straight, 911files...


Originally posted by 911files
I do believe the government (or some agencies) are continuing to cover-up some aspects of what happened.



911Files is one of those rare "Truthers" who feel there is a conspiracy within a conspiracy. He follows the lead of a janitor better known as, and appropriately named, "Caustic Logic".


.... and they call us nut jobs. lol... too funny.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by underthedome
Your pompousness is noted. May I suggest you read the works of Tony Szamboti. Unlike you, he is a structural engineer. If or when you graduate from college maybe have a discussion with him or Richard Gage or the other 5000 members of AE911truth. Until then, it best you keep your opinions to yourself. you only make yourself sound foolish.


Personally, I feel Tony Szamboti and Richard Gage are doing a wonderful job of exposing the fraud known as the govt story regarding 9/11.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by underthedome
Your pompousness is noted. May I suggest you read the works of Tony Szamboti. Unlike you, he is a structural engineer. If or when you graduate from college maybe have a discussion with him or Richard Gage or the other 5000 members of AE911truth. Until then, it best you keep your opinions to yourself. you only make yourself sound foolish.


Personally, I feel Tony Szamboti and Richard Gage are doing a wonderful job of exposing the fraud known as the govt story regarding 9/11.





Maybe you should educate yourself on thermite before you act all haughty. Tony and Richard know thermites power. Maybe you should have the guts to contact them. Maybe you'll learn something.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by underthedome]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
underthedome appears to be some kind of forum-bot with automated replies.

Hopefully a Moderator will see this and remove his posts as Off Topic?

Thanks, Mods if you are able to do this.

There's enough confusion in the thread already, without a Gage-bot sent in to advertise his message.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join