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.

 

9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

page: 35
141
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



You need to read the full report


Thanks for reminding me I forgot to address the controllable/stable issue


From the NTSB EA 990 report

Flight control surface movements recorded on the [FDR] are capable of generating the airplane flight path recorded by the [FDR] and radar.

Further, it is apparent that while the recorders were operating, both elevator surfaces were intact, attached to the airplane, and placed in the positions recorded by the FDR data and that the elevator movements were driving the airplane pitch motion, and all associated recorded parameters changed accordingly

the simulations also demonstrated that the airplane could climb to about 25,000 feet msl with the engines shut down, even with the speedbrakes extended. The simulation also documented that the engines could have been promptly restarted and (assuming there were no opposing pilot inputs) that the airplane could have been recovered during the climb after the recorders stopped recording

During the elevator split, the larger movements of the left and right elevators individually corresponded with changes in the load factor (see figure 4). For example, between 0150:30 and 0150:36, the recorded movements of the right elevator (lower graph) are reflected in the load factor profile (upper graph). Note : this graph is on page 40 in the NTSB report.


According to the NTSB and Boeing EA 990 was controllable and stable through all speeds recorded on the FDR.





Unless of course you can provide a reason for the electrical power loss to essential items on the 767. Shutting down the engines will not cause such a loss of power as the HDG will power these items.


Boeing was included in the investigation and the investigation concluded that: the cessation of the FDR data was consistent with the loss of electrical power that resulted from the engines being shut off.




Next, how can you claim "The actual aircraft break up was probably closer to 2 minutes after peak speed" when the NTSB claims the aircraft broke apart prior to water and the water impact time cannot even be accurately determined based on data which is "subject to potentially large errors"? Not to mention it was less than 1.5 mins after peak speed based on radar sweep?



Peak speed: 0150:23 Estimated time of impact: 0152:30 = 2 min and 7 seconds between the two. you forgot to count the sweeps during the climb silly.





So if you claim the in flight structural failure happened later, all you are doing is claiming the structural failure happened at less than it's peak speed of 425 EAS


No I would claim that EA 990 broke up wile executing a maneuver [such as pulling out of a steep dive] that exceeded its G limits. G factors are related AOA first V second, If there is no change AOA then there are no Gs regardless of V. Do you understand the yellow part of the graph you keep posting?




You should really view the above presentation from P4T. It's all covered.



No thank you.




-

[edit on 3-9-2010 by waypastvne]




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
It doesn't matter if it was a C-135, 767 or some other big jet with 10,000 hour pilots at the controls, the planes hit and the towers fell. You need to start with that since that is a fact and everything else your theory.


If it was a "C-135 or some other big jet with 10,000 hour pilots at the controls", the OS is false.

You don't seem too concerned about that.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0



Go though the 1000 plus posts about the fake moon landings and you will see a very similar pattern to the truthers, but in the end we did go to the moon and so all the data, theories and logic really just shows how data can be slightly biased to prove anything even when the reality is staring you in the face.


Are you saying there isn't any data, precedent or verified experts who say we went to the moon? But that you just believed it because our govt told us so?

If so, you would be wrong.

There is lots of data, precedent and tons of verified experts.

Let us know when you have some evidence for your theory.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
According to the NTSB and Boeing EA 990 was controllable and stable through all speeds recorded on the FDR.


No one said it wasn't. It only got to Vmo+65. It became uncontrollable after suffering in flight structural failure. Let us know when you find one at Vmo+150 which remained controllable/stable.



Boeing was included in the investigation and the investigation concluded that: the cessation of the FDR data was consistent with the loss of electrical power that resulted from the engines being shut off.


What caused the ATC transponder to lose power at the same time when it is powered by the HDG?

The loss of power to all 3 (CVR, FDR and ATC Transponder) is consistent with in flight structural failure.






Peak speed: 0150:23 Estimated time of impact: 0152:30 = 2 min and 7 seconds between the two. you forgot to count the sweeps during the climb silly.


An alleged climb that is "subject to potentially large errors".

Are you also claiming AA77 climbed to 50,000 feet because that is what the radar shows?





I would claim that EA 990 broke up wile executing a maneuver [such as pulling out of a steep dive] that exceeded its G limits. G factors are related AOA first V second, If there is no change AOA then there are no Gs regardless of V.


All pure speculation based on nothing but "potentially large errors, which introduces significant uncertainty into the performance calculations during the second dive."

Let us know when you have some evidence for your claims.



Do you understand the yellow part of the graph you keep posting?


Do you? waypastvne, were you able to understand the V-G diagram yet after this post?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Second time asked.





You should really view the above presentation from P4T. It's all covered.



No thank you.


So, you're arguing information you haven't even reviewed thoroughly. Typical.


Let us know when you have some evidence for your claims.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

Perhaps so but I believe the people involved planting explosive devices were killed eminently by the original plotters such as using Cheney hit squad.
As for spraying na-nothermite in the core columns I don’t believe the people doing the spraying had any idea they were applying an explosive chemical to begin with. Who knows, this deadly cocktail may have been made by the CIA working for the Bush administration, perhaps a painting company was hired from insiders, perhaps working through port authority to spray the inside core columns, everyone was working on a need to know bases. I really don’t think most of the people involved setting up some of the events even knew they were part of doing 911.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by impressme]


Does anyone know if there is any limit to the conjecture, speculation, fantasy, dreams, hallucinations, and general idiocy that makes up Trruther posts?

Isn't there a limit to the number of times someone can use the word "perhaps" or the phrase "who knows"?

Credibility suffers (entertainment value rises, however) at least just a tad when all you can do is come up with "Cheney death squards" and "perhaps this happened" and "perhaps that happened" and "who knows what happened".

When I was about 10 years old I used to draw detailed pictures of rockets - the NASA manned programs were in full swing and I was totally fascinated with it. I would label all the piece-parts of these rocket diagrams, making up names for systems and boxes and areas because I didn't know what the real names for these systems were. Didn't matter if it was accurate...what would have been the oxygen/CO2 scrubber system I called the "Air Transfiguration Machine" or something similar.

That is what I see happening with these truthers. They have no clue what went on that day, so they make up whatever it is that satisfies their brain -Cheney hit squads silencing the hoi polli, spray-on nano-thermite made from secret moon ores mined on the dark side at John Lear's ultra-secret lunar factories and shipped in alien space vehicles flown by Elvis and Michael Jackson to our secret military lab complex deep beneath the barren scrubland of eastern Nevada where the-supposedly-late Ken Lay (of Enron fame) is supervising all the nefarious underhanded and dasterdly doings under the direction of the Bush Twins, who are really the force behind all this.

What's next? Professional airline pilots can't hit a 1,300 foot tall by 208-wide skyscraper with a 767? Naw...that is just too far out there.

Gotta love that "need to know bases", too. Can't have too many bases.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I suggest you go back and re-study any Boeing 767 manuals, or schematics you may actually have in your possession.

But, lacking any real, practical experience and training ON the actual airplane, I can see why it can be so confusing.....


What caused the ATC transponder to lose power at the same time when it is powered by the HDG?

The loss of power to all 3 (CVR, FDR and ATC Transponder) is consistent with in flight structural failure.




Let's review, for the audience's benefit....the "HDG" (may, depending on source, see it sometimes called the "HMG")

Hydraulic Driven Generator (M for "motor", in the alternate acronym).

The airplane's CENTER hydraulic system provides the "oomph" to power the generator...the HDG will 'kick in" automatically with the sensing of a TOTAL A/C power failure. **

**(BTW...do NOT confuse the operation of the HDG with the RAT, nor the reasons for them to activate automatically).

SO, question from the NTSB report (and this is vital...) "Did the RAT deploy?"

Another questiion, RE: the Transponder....WHICH one was being used, on that flight?

Also a critical point to examine.

Because, the HDG only supplies power to LIMITED components, via the LEFT and RIGHT AC XFER buses, and through the LEFT XFER bus, to the LEFT (only) FLT INSTR XFER bus.

(Hint: the #2 XPNDR is powered from the RIGHT FLT INSTR XFER bus).

Here, THIS is avaliable free, online...it is really just thre for pilots to REVIEW, for recurrent purposes. It is NOT a substitute for proper training materials, as it isn't that comprehensive. BUT, since it's in public, I can use it (no copyright issues):

The HDG, in summary:


In flight, starts automatically in case of loss of BOTH AC Busses (powered by CENTER hydraulics system).
- Produce power to -

- Battery Bus and Hot Battery Bus


Which, of course, are ALSO provided from the battery (in the case of the HOT bus, at all times when it's installed. The BAT SWITCH controls power to the BAT bus). Therefore, the HDG relieves the loads on the battery. (No battery drain, to operate the buses it is directly connected to...).

The BAT CHARGER is supplied formthe GROUND SERVICE bus, which is powered (in this case) by the RIGHT XFER bus.


Continuing, with what you have (the 'basics') when powered by HDG:


- LEFT and RIGHT AC Transfer busses
- Captain's Instrument Transfer bus
- Standby AC & DC busses

** F/O instruments are not powered
** Not operating while the gear is retracting


(That last bit, is just a reminder, in case of the total loss of AC power just at rotation....PRIORITY is for the effort required to retract the gear, first...meantime, the STBY instruments and buses operate from the Battery).



In essence, that was just a (all too brief) description of WHY the "PfT"s assessment of the events surrounding Egypt Air 990 is so poorly understood, and the claims made are just FLAT WRONG! (Much as just about everytihing else they "claim"...)


Oh, to add, for clarity.....after all of the other verbiage, might have gotten lost in it:



Originally posted by TiffinayInLA
The loss of power to all 3 (CVR, FDR and ATC Transponder) is consistent with in flight structural failure.


THAT is not a correct, nor true statement.

NOT when the NTSB report is properly examined (the same report that "PfT" uses, to make that unqualified claim???) :shk:







[edit on 3 September 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

You're not even willing to put your own name to such an absurd claim.


Please....will you stop with the "putting a name to claims" BS?

You aren't even willing to put your name, your "experience", your qualifications, your anythinhg to anything you claim here - you are merely a parrot.

You seem to have taken on the role of Professional Cheerleader for the Pilots for 9/11 club, becoming nothing more than a mouthpiece for the leader of that loose affiliation of supposedly aeronautical acumen, Captain Bob Balsamo, who lacks even the barest of backbones and integrity, choosing rather to send you out as the mouthpiece for his absurd claims instead of coming here to speak for his own club.

Nothing quite like trying to build up credibility when the only Spokesman for your club is some valleygirl in a leather boustier who quite obviously doesn't know the difference between Bernoulli and Armani.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I suggest you go back and re-study any Boeing 767 manuals, or schematics you may actually have in your possession.

(snipped rant)



You claim to have all this, but you cannot provide a 767 V-G and instead claim my plot is wrong because you don't understand V-Speed definitions, for the past TWENTY-THREE pages.



Again, the score -

Evidence for my argument -

Data - NTSB, Boeing, Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
Precedent - EA990, China Airlines 747SP, TWA 727, 737, Modified DC-8, all suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits.
Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...)



Evidence for the argument of those who blindly support the OS -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0

Let us know when you will get some evidence for your argument.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
You aren't even willing to put your name, your "experience", your qualifications, your anythinhg[sic] to anything you claim here -


I don't need to. Numerous others already have and the list is growing.

patriotsquestion911.com...

Let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that is it "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220, pull G's, for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots.

So far, you have failed, repeatedly.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Look Tiff, just give it a rest once and for all, you don't want to listen to any reasonable argument and dismiss or ignore anything that doesn't sit with your doctrine.

This actually happened, get over, there are thousands of eye witnesses, lets look at this another way as you are obviously a non pilot, or have very little understanding in what you are stating, aircraft aerodynamics seem to be out of the window with you to.

I don't see what you want to keep thinking that the government is a big bad monster and that it faked this, there were terrorists that carried out the attacks, do you know or understand the logistics behind what you are purporting, the technology and the man power required. you cannot tell me that they had hundreds of people, possibly thousands in on this, not one has come forward and stated that " yeah i worked for Boeing, we created this super jet, modified it for months, tested it on ranges, made sure it could do special tricks that other standard Boeing cannot do, created special alloys, trained the pilots or built the software auto pilot to complete aerobatics etc".

That baggage handlers (who can be nosey buggers at the best of times ) working on the aircraft and other technicians walking round these aircraft, the pilots never seen any abnormality s on the walk-round, never spotted any excess weight issues when calculating c/g, distance and fuel calculations, the fuellers and other airport workers day in day out never spotted anything odd with the aircraft on the ramp or taxi way's.

I dont see how this could be hidden from all of the people in the airport that worked on the aircraft prior to departure, this marvel of technology is not like the Cessna that your boyfriend / father has. it requires a check by a few people before take off, it will smoothly taxi past the workers in the other stands and people do stop to look when you roll past, incase they accidently damage your aircraft. not ONE person has come forward to say yeah i seen these mods, the aircraft was a different weight or it had a different wing design

Wee Mad



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Xtrozero
It doesn't matter if it was a C-135, 767 or some other big jet with 10,000 hour pilots at the controls, the planes hit and the towers fell. You need to start with that since that is a fact and everything else your theory.


If it was a "C-135 or some other big jet with 10,000 hour pilots at the controls", the OS is false.

You don't seem too concerned about that.


I would be concerned but it all gets diluted with ideas like the OP’s "even real pilots couldn't do it". So my point is what do you think hit the towers? Since you missed what my post was asking. Maybe if you started with that we have something to compare.

You are suggesting the airplanes would have broken up once they hit 421 Knots and that all the ATC data and anything else they may have is wrong.
So what do you think is right?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Are you saying there isn't any data, precedent or verified experts who say we went to the moon? But that you just believed it because our govt told us so?


Of course it is all there but every bit of it is challenged just like 911. Now I'm not saying it is wrong to challenge and if facts are found to be incorrect then they need corrected, and that might be the case, but as real as going to the moon , the facts are that airplanes hit the towers no matter how much someone wants to prove they didn’t .



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme


Perhaps so but I believe the people involved planting explosive devices were killed eminently by the original plotters such as using Cheney hit squad.


Lots of assumptions with the luxury of thinking after the fact.

1. No one even had a clue that weakening the inner core could collapse the towers with ALL experts and even the terrorist were totally surprised that they fell, but your theory suggests people knew exactly what it would take to make them fall.

2. I feel people invent what they need to bridge the gaps/holes in their theories such as mysterious explosive coating that was used on the inner core. So if the airplanes were a distraction to the real cause of explosives then how would anyone figure out where the planes would hit so they could start the collapse at the random floor. Also why would not a airplane flown into the core with 100k+ pounds of fuel on board would not do the job much easier? Remember once one floor went then it was all over because the force continued to exponentially build on each floor to the point the resistance was zero and the collapse reached basically freefall.


Well since it would take a long time to do I would suggest Clinton admin on this since Bush was very new in office.

All in all, still a tremendous number of loose ends, where Chaney could have supported the terrorists and achieve the same results with no need to change the story, and even if they did use explosives to help they could just blame it on the terrorist even more as a long term project that it seemed to be anyways.




[edit on 3-9-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
@ Wee Man -

There isn't anyone here that is claiming aircraft did not hit the WTC. Please read the thread.

Also, please view this presentation to learn about aerodynamics and why manufacturers set limits for their aircraft.

Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack

@Xtrozero -

No one has "suggested" the aircraft will break up at 421 knots. Please read the thread, the sources provided and the evidence gathered.


To both of you, please try to limit your use of textbook disinfo tactics as readers may start to think you have an agenda.

Disinfo Tactic Number 4 - The Strawman - www.benfrank.net...

Disinfo Tactic Number 12 - Too Complex - www.benfrank.net...



Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that is it "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220, pull G's, for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots, and when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so...".



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

To both of you, please try to limit your use of textbook disinfo tactics as readers may start to think you have an agenda.


I'm just asking you a question. You post your picture that shows at 421 knots structure failure is imminent…I’m reading your picture..geez

You have also explained that at higher speeds pilots will lose control of the aircraft and so the faster the airplane flies the harder it is to control….your point, is it not?

It also seems that you suggest that G force has little to do with it, (or you don’t know that you can be at 1 G at 500 knots and also be at 1 G at 200 knots) and as I suggest in my “easy” statement, to do turns at any speed keeping the g force low, and then firewalling the engines on the final run in would be within the ability of the terrorist. I also suggest that things can go from easy to impossible rather quickly, and that is just logical, I say this because of the position of the second airplane that hit the tower if it had missed I don’t see the pilot pulling out of it to come around for another try, so it was an all or nothing ordeal to my observation and low experience can do that.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I'm just asking you a question. You post your picture that shows at 421 knots structure failure is imminent…I’m reading your picture..geez


I've provided this link numerous times in this thread, Please click on it and read it this time.

Page 151 -

Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics

If you are still confused of the "Structural Failure Zone" for every V-G diagram ever made, for every fixed-wing aircraft on this planet, based on airspeeds set by the manufacturer, please click here and learn from an Aerobatic Flight School (also provided numerous times in this thread) -

www.apstraining.com...


You have also explained that at higher speeds pilots will lose control of the aircraft and so the faster the airplane flies the harder it is to control….your point, is it not?


What happens to Center of Pressure as an aircraft accelerates??

What does this do to the moment arm with respect to the Center of Gravity?

Are you familiar with the term leverage?

Did you know that Pitch control has actual physical stops?

These are just some of the reasons manufacturer's set limits for their aircraft.

Click the above link to the "Full Film - 9/11 World Trade Center Attack" analysis to learn more.



It also seems that you suggest that G force has little to do with it, (or you don’t know that you can be at 1 G at 500 knots and also be at 1 G at 200 knots)


It appears you are not familiar with a V-G diagram and why manufacturer's set airspeed limitations.

Please use the above sources I provided to educate yourself, then follow the 1 G line horizontally on any V-G diagram you find for any aircraft and let us know what it says to the right of the Vd/Vne line.

Here's a hint -
Click


and as I suggest in my “easy” statement, to do turns at any speed keeping the g force low, and then firewalling the engines on the final run in would be within the ability of the terrorist.


And as I have asked you since you made your "500 mph" mistake, and numerous mistakes thereafter, please look at the data as your "suggestions" and "assumptions" are wrong.


I also suggest that things can go from easy to impossible rather quickly,



Anytime you wish to look at the actual data, please feel free.

The time you have spent over the past 20 pages making assumptions could have been better spent actually informing yourself.

Why do you argue information that you have not reviewed thoroughly?


Again -

Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that is it "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220, pull G's, for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots, and when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so...".



[edit on 4-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Just a quick heads up. Off topic sorry but here you go. Programme about to start on channel 4
911. 102 minutes that changed america. Should be the world.
Sorry for off topic.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Just a quick heads up. Off topic sorry but here you go. Programme about to start right now on channel 4
911. 102 minutes that changed america. Should be the world.
Sorry for off topic.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
If you are still confused of the "Structural Failure Zone" for every V-G diagram ever made, for every fixed-wing aircraft on this planet, based on airspeeds set by the manufacturer, please click here and learn from an Aerobatic Flight School (also provided numerous times in this thread)


Do I seem confused? I'm just trying to figure out where you are going with all this. If the report says one plane hit a tower at 430 knots and the tower fell and the report estimated the other plane was 500+ knots and the tower fell what is your point if their estimates were wrong with the 500+ knot airplane?

Do you agree that G force plays a lot into all this?

Do you agree that you can be at 500 knots and be at 1 G?

Do you agree 990 must have pulled more G force in its high speed pull up from its dive well past any max designed speed?

Your site suggests this.. “Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure”

But the flight data and radar showed a different picture.


Flight data showed that the flight controls were used to move the elevators in order to initiate and sustain the steep dive. The flight deviated from its assigned altitude of 33,000 feet (10,000 m) (FL330) and dived to 16,000 feet (4,900 m) over 44 seconds, then climbed to 24,000 feet (7,300 m) and began a final dive, hitting the Atlantic Ocean about two and a half minutes after leaving FL330.[3] Radar and radio contact was lost 30 minutes after the aircraft departed JFK Airport in New York on its flight to Cairo.


At 33,000 feet the aircraft went into a dive and past .86 mach in the first 2000 feet of that descent. It continued to descent to 16,000 feet ever increasing its speed AND then pulled up climbing to 24,000 feet where it started a descent again until it hit the ocean.

So what do you think the speed of the airplane was at 16,000 feet when it pasted .86 mach at 31,000 feet (I’m sure it was well past design limits, and most likely close or well past 500 knots), BUT it still pulled out of the descent and climbed to 24,000 feet. How does this match up with your official statement “Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure”?

Also how does this even come close to matching the flight profiles of either 911 aircraft? Same planes but extremely different flight profiles to say the least, but I guess that doesn’t matter much to you.



What happens to Center of Pressure as an aircraft accelerates??


Nope not a clue, in the C-141 which is a T tail we had a condition known as “Mach Tuck” this is where the faster the plane went the T tail elevator would carry more lift and the nose would start to tuck and past .78 Mach it would continually get worst, but this condition is related to T tails only.




What does this do to the moment arm with respect to the Center of Gravity?


Speed does not shift CG in any way. I do know what you are trying to say here, but do you understand it all?




Did you know that Pitch control has actual physical stops?


Are you talking trim tabs?





Anytime you wish to look at the actual data, please feel free.


So now that I look at "further data" not on your web site it is rather different than what you all are suggesting...




[edit on 4-9-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Do you agree that G force plays a lot into all this?



Let us know how many "G Forces" these objects/aircraft pulled -

(Be sure to watch till the end to see your beloved C-141 do an un-commanded roll)

Google Video Link



When you get done with that, please click the links I provided for you above and notify all of them that their V-G diagrams and the way they teach it are all wrong.

You seem to think that as long as an aircraft doesn't pull any G's, it can fly at any speed it wants over Vmo and remain easy to control and without consequence.

You are wrong.

You are confusing Vmo with Va.


.... in the C-141 which is a T tail we had a condition known as “Mach Tuck” this is where the faster the plane went the T tail elevator would carry more lift and the nose would start to tuck and past .78 Mach it would continually get worst, but this condition is related to T tails only.



Mach Tuck is a "condition related to T-tails only"? Really?

Hey weedwhacker, do you agree with that?


This guy wants to rewrite the book on everything related to aerodynamics... wow.

Xtrozero, start with going over to wiki and edit their entry on Mach Tuck letting them know it only applies to T-Tails.

en.wikipedia.org...

Too funny...


(Sorry, I just don't have the time today to correct all of your mistakes in your post, but the above is the most glaring for the readers to understand)

Finally -

Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that is it "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220, pull G's, for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots, and when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so...".


Originally posted by Xtrozero
Nope not a clue,


Clearly.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join