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: 36
141
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Xtrozero, valiant efforts, but I believe "Tiffany" is trying to dislodge you, as usual....

From a discussion above:


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Did you know that Pitch control has actual physical stops?



Originally posted by Xtrozero
Are you talking trim tabs?



Not sure if you were laying a trap, or not Xtrozero, so apologies if I spoiled it for you.

IF "Tiffany" is indeed just a rather inexperienced GenAv pilot (as it appears) who has been suckered in by the nonsense from the "PfT" websie baloney....THEN that question might trap "her".

However.... as you and I know, large jets don't have "trim tabs" on the elevators.

Still....the veiled reference "she" attempted to make, in the normal vein of disparaging tone, was to "actual physical stops" on the stabilizer trim, in regards to the Boeing 767.

I had found this photo before, and didn't save it to the ATS "My Pictures". Still can't (hotel computer, has program limiting me).

So, I will use the "IMG" link feature:



Sorry, it's a B-777, not a B-767. BUT, best I could find, for explanation.

As YOU no doubt know (but for the benefit of the audience) large jets' pitch trim is accomplished by the physical re-positioning of the ENTIRE horizontal stabilizer. The surface moves (pivots) so that the leading edge will change its angle of attack , as needed, to relieve "out-of-trim" aerodynamic forces that occur, dring normal flight operations.

(Airspeed/Power changes, and the result of the C/L changes, in regards to the CG location...AND, eventually on long flight, the actual, if minor, CG change as a result of fuel burn-off).

As we can see in the "typical" photo (although a B-777, the B-767 is roughly similar) there is a great deal of range of motion available.

Aerodynamically, the horizontal stab is designed to produce a "dwonward" force, in order to provide a "balance". Since, the CG is (in "stable" flight terminology) always forward of hte C/L (center of lift). The "C/L" is the imaginary, and also 'physical' point along an a airplane's longitudinal axis, wher the "UP" force from the total lift being generated is considered, mathematically, to be concentrated.

IOW....the entire force vector of ALL lifting components has to be determined as providing a common direction....THAT is the "C/L".

It is simply drawn out, in the typical "Four Forces" diagram. I just added more qualifiers that really aren't important to understand, for the grasp of the concept.

POINT is: CG is, for the "dynamically stable" airplane aerodyanimcs, always FORWARD of the C/L.

(This is why, for those who have flown, the natural tendency of the airplane when you reduce thrust is, the nose will drop. the "four forces" are always seeking a new equilibrium. Of course, flight control inputs ALTER the other aspects).

ANYWAY....I expect what "Tiffany" is attemtping to allude to is, that everything else remaining unchanged, when you increaase airspeed, in level flight, the requirement is "felt" in the controls, for MORE 'down trim'.

ADD power, NOSE tends to come up. REDUCE power, NOSE tends to drop.

Everyone who has any time flying knows this, even if it isn't elaborated in words...it is FELT, it is a FEEL, in the controls.

Those who ONLY profess to "know" about flying, from using home-based simulation programs, do NOT feel this!!

Of course, any of the REAL pilots who have contributed to this topic understand this already. I write for hte benefit of the armchair wannbes...

DON'T give up on your dreams! Enjoy what technology has provided, as a sample of "flying", but go beyond that, and get out and (if you can afford it) actually FEEL what is REAL!!!!!




posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

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

Google Video Link


An un-commanded roll? You sure about that? I guess you have some inside information on that specific flight since the left outboard ailerons can clearly be seen in the in the upper position, disrupting the boundary layer air, killing lift on that wing, resulting in the roll off to the left.

Another one of your "radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan" and "when it reaches its "design limits", it breaks. Period." moments, of course.

You are racking up quite the quotable quotes here, Tiffany. Best be careful...people will start to think you don't know what the heck you are talking about.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


Thanks, Trebor451, for taking the time, NOT only to wath, but to analyze a completely (again, as is wont for "Tiffany") irrelevant video.

A BUNCH of totally differnt airframes???

To prove, WHAT?, exactly???? That "Tiffany" can be fooled by incongrous comparisons? (OR..that there is a concerted effort to FOOL those who don't know any better? THOSE who don't ask the serious questions?)

Out-of-context VIDEOS WITH NO BEARING??? (Since it was a compilation of MANY disparate situations, and events).

AS I KEEP repeating....this sort of tactic will ONLY fool the non-pilots. Which seems to be the goal, here.....



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
It appears weedwhacker and trebor both agree with the following statement from Xtrozero...


Originally posted by Xtrozero
... 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.


(bold emphasis added)


Not surprised considering none of them understand a V-G can be plotted when the V-Speeds are known.

The score remains - (now after TWENTY-FOUR pages)

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

Again -

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

Let us also know when you will re-write the books on aerodynamics. Again, feel free to start with the wiki entry for Mack Tuck.

en.wikipedia.org...

Be sure to let them know Mach Tuck is a "condition which only relates to T-tails" and that an aircraft is "easy to control" at any speed over Vmo as long as it doesn't pull any G Force.



Hope y'all are enjoying your Labor Day weekend!



[edit on 4-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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


Yep uncommanded roll with the right aileron down and the left one up....funny....

Do you just pick and choose stuff to prove your point without actually watching it?




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.


No I'm not saying "ANY" speeds, but I'm am saying that unless Boeing comes out and says that the report is impossible then I would need to think it is. Since first the planes actually hit the towers and second the manufacture is not disputing it.

You still have not answered my question in if one plane brought down a tower at 430 knots what difference does it make on the second one, so even if it was doing let’s say 430 too then the tower would have collapsed in any event. I’m also not suggesting a max speed since we do not really know what it is, but we can safely suggest it is above 430.





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


I'm talking the more extreme nature of the phenomena that would drastically limit max speeds and that is why we flew at .74 Mach and the C-5 cruised at .78 and our non T tail C-135 cruised at .89 with a top speed of more than 530 knots…so here is a C-135 (707) that can do it….You my friend have the wisdom of Google...congrats....

And I don't see these types of limits with the 767....






[edit on 4-9-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I'm talking the more extreme nature of the phenomena that is why we flew at .74 Mach and the C-5 cruised at .78 and our non T tail C-135 cruised at .89 with a top speed of more than 530 knots…so here is a C-135 (707) that can do it….

You my friend have the wisdom of Google...congrats....


Please let us know when you are going to re-write the books on aerodynamics regarding Mach Tuck.

Please start with Wiki as "T-tail" is no where to be found in the wiki entry relating to the causes of Mach Tuck.

You know why?

Clearly you don't.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Please start with Wiki as "T-tail" is no where to be found in the wiki entry relating to the causes of Mach Tuck.

You know why?

Clearly you don't.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]


As I said you have the wisdom of google... but that is about it....



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
No I'm not saying "ANY" speeds, but I'm am saying that unless Boeing comes out and says that the report is impossible then I would need to think it is. Since first the planes actually hit the towers and second the manufacture is not disputing it.


Thank you for admitting the only evidence you have is "Because the govt told me so...".

And since it's clear you think Boeing isn't part of the Military Industrial Complex with government interests for war...

Click here -

Qui Bono

And how exactly did those big bad Muslim's benefit?

Click Here



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Please start with Wiki as "T-tail" is no where to be found in the wiki entry relating to the causes of Mach Tuck.

You know why?

Clearly you don't.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]


As I said you have the wisdom of google... but that is about it....






And as I have proven, you have absolutely no evidence for your claims but "Because that is what the government told me.."

Not only that, but you have no clue regarding aerodynamics or the data being discussed.


So, you are saying the wiki entry on Mach Tuck is wrong?

Add that to the list of all the other publications you feel are wrong.

What's next, you going to re-write the FAR's?

I met many who tried. They're all dead now. Many plowed themselves into mountains. The rest thought they could fly Vmo+ as long as they didn't pull any G Force.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Xtrozero
No I'm not saying "ANY" speeds, but I'm am saying that unless Boeing comes out and says that the report is impossible then I would need to think it is. Since first the planes actually hit the towers and second the manufacture is not disputing it.


Thank you for admitting the only evidence you have is "Because the govt told me so...".

And since it's clear you think Boeing isn't part of the Military Industrial Complex with government interests for war...


Yep, just expand it out to suggest everyone offical is in on the secret.

But you still have not answered my question...if one plane hit and took down a tower at 430...which I assume you are not disputing then why care what speed the other plane was flying since it would still have the same results?

What would they benefit from it? Hmm what do they benefit from suicide bombers? They don’t like us and would love to bring us to our knees, they do not like us meddling in their affairs which they view as religious. They don’t like us supporting Israel either AND they do not like the world bank and industries taking over countries for profit…many reasons for them not to like us and to go to great extremes in showing that dislike.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
But you still have not answered my question...if one plane hit and took down a tower at 430...which I assume you are not disputing then why care what speed the other plane was flying since it would still have the same results?


Both aircraft speeds were calculated by the NTSB using the same exact method, RADAR.

1. I have given you the links numerous times through this thread. It is clear you rather make "suggestions" and "assumptions", than review the data.

2. Neither Aircraft "took down the tower". The towers remained standing after both aircraft hit.

3. Fire and Gravity are the official excuses for 3 Towers falling. (Read again: THREE towers)

1200+ Architects and Engineers disagree.

patriotsquestion911.com...

Try not to drift off topic because you still cannot understand a simple V-G nor understand that Mach Tuck does not solely "relate" to "T-tails".





What would they benefit from it?


Click the link. Here it is again -

Qui Bono

(note: add stock charts to the various diagrams Xtrozero cannot interpret)

Xtrozero, have you started you wiki edit yet to let the world know Mach Tuck relates only to T-tails?

When you get done with that, be sure to write the editors of the "Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics" and let them know the "Structural Failure" zone does not apply at 1 G above Vne/Vd. You may want to write Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, Airbus, and all the other manufacturer's as well. According to you, they all have it wrong.




posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

So, you are saying the wiki entry on Mach Tuck is wrong?


I'm sorry I didn't consult wiki prior to posting, but I'm assuming you didn't know there was anything called Mach Tuck until you happen to read it in my post and just now quickly Googled it...once again your wiki knowledge amazes me.

But anyhow, I said that since we had T tails (upper stabilizer) we were severely limited by it where the C-135 which does not have an upper stabilizer is not and can fly speeds in excess of 500 knots… It just so happens that the 767 is much like the 707 and made by the same company who has not come out and said 500 knots is impossible for the 767 to achieve.

You don’t need to “win” with me; you need to win with Boeing…. I’m just a military guy who flew in the 80s and 90s… BTW I’m not using wiki for anything I write…sorry



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I'm sorry I didn't consult wiki prior to posting, but I'm assuming you didn't know there was anything called Mach Tuck until you happen to read it in my post and just now quickly Googled it...once again your wiki knowledge amazes me.


You can speculate all you want regarding my aeronautical knowledge. After all, most of your arguments are strawmans.

But the question remains.

When are you going to edit Wiki and their sources letting them know Mach Tuck is a "condition which only relates to T-tails"?


1. ^ Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.: U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. 2003. pp. 3–37 to 3–38. FAA-8083-25. www.faa.gov...
2. ^ Airplane Flying Handbook. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.: U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. 2004. pp. 15–7 to 15–8. FAA-8083-3A. www.faa.gov...
3. ^ a b Transonic Aircraft Design
4. ^ Bodie, Warren M. The Lockheed P-38 Lightning: The Definitive Story of Lockheed's P-38 Fighter. Hayesville, North Carolina: Widewing Publications, 2001, 1991. ISBN 0-96293-595-6.

This article incorporates public domain material from the United States Government document "Airplane Flying Handbook".
This article incorporates public domain material from the United States Government document "Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge".



"T-tail" is no where to be found as a cause (ANY cause) for Mach Tuck.

You should really click the link before you further diminish your credibility.

(the little you have left)

[edit on 4-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

When are you going to edit Wiki and their sources letting them know Mach Tuck is a "condition which only relates to T-tails"?


Since you never even used Mach Tuck prior to my post and now it is within your vocabulary and such a new expert on it….geez why even try…you do not read posts and you pick and choose what you want to repeat over and over.



"T-tail" is no where to be found as a cause (ANY cause) for Mach Tuck.

You should really click the link before you further diminish your credibility.


(the little you have left)


You know you are such a rude little girl. If I had my name on your list I would be branded as one of your experts...

T tail is used to describe the C-141 and C-5 horizontal stabilizer configuration...sorry I used slang not in your precious wiki.


let me repeat the post above yours..please read it

Xtrozero wrote


But anyhow, I said that since we had T tails (upper stabilizer) we were severely limited by it where the C-135 which does not have an upper stabilizer is not and can fly speeds in excess of 500 knots… It just so happens that the 767 is much like the 707 and made by the same company who has not come out and said 500 knots is impossible for the 767 to achieve.

You don’t need to “win” with me; you need to win with Boeing…. I’m just a military guy who flew in the 80s and 90s… BTW I’m not using wiki for anything I write…sorry


[edit on 5-9-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Xtrozero -

Read the purpose for the T-Tail in -

The Pilots Handbook For Aeronautical Knowledge

Since you refuse to click links, ask yourself -

What came first, the T-tail or the Conventional tail?

Why do you think the T- tail was developed?

In closing -

It's not surprising to know trebor and weedwhacker agree with you that Mach Tuck is a "condition only related to T-tails". Especially given the fact they do not understand a V-G diagram can be plotted when V-Speeds are known.

Psst - Xtrozero, I didn't get my information from google. I quickly googled information because I knew you were wrong and to provide sources for the layman reading. Let us know when you are going to edit those sources.



[edit on 5-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

It's not surprising to know trebor and weedwhacker agree with you that Mach Tuck is a "condition only related to T-tails". Especially given the fact they do not understand a V-G diagram can be plotted when V-Speeds are known.


No you are right I miss spoke in that statement and I went on and explained in further detail that you choose to ignore. My point is Mach Tuck limited our ability to achieve higher speeds due to the upper empennage design that the C-135, 707 and 767 (Boeing airplanes) are not limited in the same way, and I went on to explain we flew .74 Mach where the C-135 flew .89 Mach and could achieve 500+ knots…

Not a big point for you to get all excited about….but a point in once again we do not know the upper limit for the 767 and Boeing has not suggested it cannot be done.


Psst I don't believe you....and you tend to never revisit the errors you continually make that weedwacker and others point out. You just fall back to your 990 scenario and your VMO picture that is your Boeing "proof positive" even though you say Boeing is in on it all because they will not say the report is false.


Maybe you can revisit this below...I'll repost so that you can explain it.



Posted by Xtrozero

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.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

What came first, the T-tail or the Conventional tail?

Why do you think the T- tail was developed?


I agree with your link, but the little information you most likely cannot Google is that the Empennage on the C-141 actually had greater lifting capability than the wings and so as the plane went faster it would greatly increase the effects of Mach Tuck (or pitch down).
Sorry if I reached your wiki limits…



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
you are right


I respect you for being the first one who blindly supports the OS to admit they were wrong-


I miss spoke in that statement


Don't back-peddle. You didn't "misspeak". You clearly stated Mach Tuck is a "condition related to T-tail's only". You were flat out wrong.

It is a matter of fact that the "T-Tail" was developed to prevent such pitch over's at high speeds.

You would know this if you clicked on the source links I provided, (and not just Wiki).

In other words, if you had a Conventional tail on the C-141, you would be limited to less speed than you are now.


I went on and explained in further detail that you choose to ignore. My point is Mach Tuck limited our ability to achieve higher speeds due to the upper empennage design that the C-135, 707 and 767 (Boeing airplanes) are not limited in the same way, and I went on to explain we flew .74 Mach where the C-135 flew .89 Mach and could achieve 500+ knots…


Once again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge in aerodynamics.

Here's a hint - look up the sweep for each of the above relative to each other.

Then look up the effects of sweep as it pertains to Mcrit.

Good luck.

The rest of your post I didn't even bother to read.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

2. Neither Aircraft "took down the tower". The towers remained standing after both aircraft hit.

3. Fire and Gravity are the official excuses for 3 Towers falling. (Read again: THREE towers)




Yes fire and gravity, so once again how does the speed of the airplanes affect this when one of them is offically stated as hitting at 430 knots? This would suggest even if you proved the other hit at lets say 430 knots too then the results would be the same with the fire and gravity....

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

You would know this if you clicked on the source links I provided, (and not just Wiki).

In other words, if you had a Conventional tail on the C-141, you would be limited to less speed than you are now.


Well as you read my next post you are wrong...sorry

You quickly read something on the web and become an expert and as many have suggested it is not so.

Cheers

I guess you are more interested in Mach Tuck on the C-141 and you end up not really knowing what you are talking about even though you can search well.

But it seems you can not comment on the offical statement of your site? Why is that so?



[edit on 5-9-2010 by Xtrozero]




top topics



 
141
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join