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.

 

An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level. (hoax)

page: 25
95
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 

Please feel free to come up with just one example of a similar type aircraft exceeding an airspeed of 430kts/1.01M, even in an uncontrolled dive, which did not experience structural failure.


How about two, which were not hard to find? Both landed safely.


TWA Flight 841 (1979)

while the plane was cruising at 39,000 feet (11,887 m) and Mach 0.816, it began a sharp roll to the right. The roll continued despite the corrective measures taken by the autopilot and the human pilot. The aircraft went into a spiral dive, losing about 34,000 feet (10,363 m) in 63 seconds. During the course of the dive, the plane rolled through 360 degrees twice, and crossed the Mach limit for the 727 airframe. Control was regained at about 5,000 feet (1,524 m) after the first officer, with the captain in agreement, extended the landing gear in an attempt to slow the aircraft, and following the loss of the #7 slat from right wing. The plane suffered substantial structural damage, but made an emergency landing at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Michigan, at 10:31 p. m. local time without further trouble.



China Airlines Flight 006

As the plane descended through clouds, the captain's attention was drawn to the artificial horizon which displayed excessive bank and pitch. Because such an attitude is highly irregular, the crew incorrectly assumed the indicators to be faulty. Without any visual references (due to the clouds) and having rejected the information from the ADIs, the crew became spatially disoriented. The plane entered a steep dive at a high bank angle. Altitude decreased 10,000 ft (3,000 m) within only 20 seconds, a vertical descent averaging 30,000 feet per minute (150 m/s). The crew and passengers experienced g-forces reaching as much as 5g.

Learning there were injured people on board, an emergency was declared and they flew straight in to the airport and landed without further incident.

edit on 8-1-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


As for the Boeing spokesman asked, the question and answer was correct. An airliner at 700ft cannot go 510knots. However, one critical part was LEFT OUT: The correct full answer is: an airliner at 700ft cannot go 510knots in level flight If you take off and fly to 700ft, and then throttle up, it will be impossible to fly at that speed. Also, a spokeswoman is not exactly the person you technical questions for.

You keep ignoring the fact that the plane was DESCENDING from a high altitude. Everybody and their grandmother should understand this most basic fact and a little something called gravity. A plane is limited by air resistance and drag. That is why it has powerful engines that over come drag. What are the main forces that govern flight? Thrust, drag, lift, gravity. I'm sure you are aware of these? A plane's engines overcome drag and gravity, and they provide thrust. Putting a plane into a dive with engines at full thrust and gravity, will cause the plane to speed up well past its speed limit. Also, asking Pilots for 9/11 Truth is not a credible source to ask anything for. I wouldn't trust them on the time of day or if it is day or night outside.

The best example to compare this to is taking a car and driving down a hill. Now, taking a car to the top and letting it roll downhill, what happens? It speeds up correct? Now, if you floor it, downhill, it is going to go much faster, now what happens when you let off the gas at the bottom of the hill? It starts to slow down. Air resistance starts to work on it. This is why a plane also will not travel at high speed in LEVEL FLIGHT. But you put it in a dive, and well, it is not that hard. Aircraft during WWI managed to nearly break the sound barrier in dives, many crashed due to flight controls seizing up. The biggest issue is controllability when approaching such high speeds. That is why airliners are generally given a "speed limit" at low altitudes as well. You see NewAgeMan, what you forget, even though you repost over and over those diagrams, it shows you still do not fully understand how aircraft work. It has been explained countless times before, even by some of our ATS Members. Weedwhacker is, or was, the best man to ask about these things and he had explained the meanings of what you posted, and corrected your very flawed posts about this topic with others. Im not sure if he is still around but, he along with others, have explained these very posts time and again.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


To clarify a bit, i might have mischaracterized slightly in that post regarding the 9/11 "truth" war/battle that ensued between John Lear and John Bursill by referring to it as a "debate" between the two of them, when it would really be better characterized as a great misunderstanding, in the extreme, on both their parts.

Moving on...



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 



S.O, with all due respect, these precedents have already been covered in this thread, and none of them, whether they barely managed to survive or not, exceeded an airspeed of 430kts/1.01m (see EAS in the OP to understand that split, if somehow you haven't managed to clue into or fully understand it, yet).

Best Regards,

NAM

---

Objection - Rebuttal

Dear reader,

These aircraft, China Air 006 and TWA Flight 841, even though they managed to land without completely falling apart in mid air, like Egypt Air 990 did at 425kts/.99M (5 knots over Vd and .08m over Md of .91M), experienced complete loss of control, as well as structural failure, at airspeeds far below that of the South Tower Plane, which itself neither experienced any structural failure nor any loss of controlled flight and maneuvering, while also pulling g-forces somewhere in the order of 2.5g's.

In this regard - being over its Vd structural design limit or simply put, it's flight envelope, by NINETY knots, for a sustained period, both during the dive, as well as on its final post-dive, level approach, by accelerating at level flight to retain it's airspeed of 510 knots (515 with the windspeed vector added) at lower altitude (see Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175 (pdf))
- one must also factor in probabilities or possibilities, and/or the lack thereof, in terms of a "heavy" commercial jet aircraft being allegedly piloted by a hijacker considered by the 9/11 Commission to be no more skilled or experienced than his buddy Hani Hanjour of Pentagon plane fame, who the record shows had difficulty controlling, and flying, a single engine Cessna..

---

China Air 006

Btw, China Air never reached mach 1. and only reached it's Vmo or max operating limit speed (as discussed earlier in my comprehensive "general" rebuttal)

It never even reached it's Vd design dive speed (flight envelope limit, established during flutter testing), and only just reached it's Vmo, whereby the structural damage it incurred during complete loss of control in a dive, although due in part to aerodynamic pressures as a result of excessive airspeed reaching it's Vmo, was largely due to g-forces (up to 5 g's).

So not only did it NOT reach an airspeed of 430kts/1.01m, it didn't even exceed the range beyond its Vmo/Mmo or max operating speed limit, let alone it's Vd/Md design dive speed limit or outer flight envelope limit beyond which structural failure and most certainly loss of flight control becomes imminent.

I here refer the reader, to the NSTB Report


National Transportation Safety Board: China Airlines Boeing 747-SP Accident Report

www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de...

This is directly from the NTSB Report


"Although the captain said that the airplane exceeded Vmo twice and also decelerated below 100 KIAS during the dive, all three crew members said that they did not hear the overspeed warning and that the stall warning stickshaker did not activate. Examination of the reliable recorded airspeed data points showed that the Vmo limitation was not exceeded during the descent. However, the recorder data does show airspeeds at or below 100 KIAS. The Safety Board cannot explain why the stall warning stickshaker did not activate, or if it did activate, why it was not felt or heard by the flightcrew."

www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de...


The aircraft did not reach or exceed, as claimed, an airspeed of 430kts/1.01m, so i don't really understand and am at a bit of a loss as to why S.O., with all his experience and analytical skills touted earlier, would claim that it did..

---

TWA Flight 841 (1979)

As to the second example offered (apparently to support the contention that an airspeed of an airspeed of 430kts/1.01m, was exceeded) of TWA Flight 841, where it states, underlined by S.O... "crossed the Mach limit for the 727 airframe" that could very well be considered rather misleading, because that doesn't mean nor imply what S.O. might have us believe or assume what it means ie: that it reached or exceeded an airspeed of 430kts/1.01m, or even that it exceeded it's Vd/Md flight envelope - but instead, only that it exceeded it's Vmo/Mmo (as it turns out, by only about 30 knots or .06m).

Here it should also be noted that the 727 is a much faster aircraft that the 767 who's Vmo/Mmo exceeds that of the Boeing 767 by about 40kts/.04 Mach. Again, Vmo/Mmo is something like 80% of Vd/Md which defines the outer flight envelope, already discussed repeatedly and highlighted in my rebuttal to neformore, beyond which structural failure is imminent and which clearly, as we can see with these precedents can and will begin to occur once the outer flight envelop is entered between the aircraft's Vmo/Mmo and it's Vd/Md limit.

In the case of TWA 841, the NTSB Report states that the airplane reached a max speed of .96 Mach at 31,800 feet, exceeding it's Mmo of .90 Mach by .06 Mach or about 30 knots over it's Mmo.

For the following airspeed calculation, please note the EAS or Equivalent Airspeed.. (near sea level)

http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx#EquivalentAirspeed


TWA Flight 841 (1979)
NSTB report


www.airdisaster.com...

from the wiki page ref'd
en.wikipedia.org...(1979)

libraryonline.erau.edu...
(scroll down to page 19 in the pdf.)

It might have been worth the read, before offering a standard "debunker" reply, especially for someone who's anger "burns with the heat of a 1000 suns" over perceived typical 9/11 "truther" "knee jerk" reaction/responses..

----


Re: 727-191 Vmo/Mmo

The following from Frontier Airlines 727-191 data:

SPEED LIMITATIONS

MAXIMUM OPERATING SPEED – VMO/MMO

35,000’ - 310 KIAS .90 MACH

30,000’ - 345 KIAS .90 MACH

25,000’ - 383 KIAS .90 MACH

20,000’ - 409 KIAS

15,000’ - 403 KIAS

10,000’ - 398 KIAS

www.pprune.org...


TWA Flight 841 - "TWA727" on the updated V-G Diagram
(China Air 006, also depicted, accurately)

New V-G Diagram
(based on additional, careful and thorough investigative research and analysis with precise and careful examination (no "knee jerk"), prompted in reply and based on info sourced from the wikipedia reference and the NTSB report itself)


Large: files.abovetopsecret.com...

Note: re: TWA Flight 841 - peak G forces

According to the NTSB report, TWA 841 reached 6 G at 5000 feet.

Ref:
TWA Flight 841 (1979)
NSTB report

www.airdisaster.com...

It might be worth a read..


edit on 8-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
S.O, with all due respect, these precedents have already been covered in this thread,

Now you're just being stubbornly silly just to reject precisely what you asked for.

In one case, the airframe exceeded rate mach speed, and the crew was still able to find a way to control the plane for a safe landing.

It's clear you have no intention to be honest. As is the majority of "9/11 Truth" scammers I've encountered. It's sad, if not pathetic… and certainly grossly insulting to the families of those who lost their lives. You should be ashamed.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I stand by the research and information offered in rebuttal, for clarity, precision and comprehension.

There's no need to bring the victims into it, but to be honest, i feel much the same way from my perspective and point of view in regards what i percieve, from my POV, to be "knee jerk" 9/11 "debunking".

I'm not trying to scam anyone nor mislead anybody here, and this work if i could i would dedicate it to the likes of Kevin Cosgrove and the brave firefighters and first responders, along with all the victims and their families, including all the further victims created in the wake of 9/11, which as a grand psy-op "hoax" and evident power grab and abuse of power, has at some level, made victims of us all and the whole world, and even human history itself.

There's no need to go there S.O.

I am only doing what i firmly believe in my heart is right, and believe you me i've questioned it, whether or not it's the right thing to do and this has by no means been easy for me, and there's been a price to pay for this effort and work let me tell you. i lost a days pay just today, working up this research and information because i felt that what you offered in your reply to my "challenge" was highly misleading.


Let's just stick with the facts and the data in evidence and avoid the personal attacks, shall we?

I would really like to maintain a certain degree of civility here, if at all possible..

Also, is it really fair to hate me, personally, for simply sharing my views and research here, in a 9/11 conspiracy forum?

Best Regards (i mean that),

NAM

P.S. Also, the two examples you offered, clearly did NOT meet the criteria in regards to what i'd asked for. To the contrary, the information and data i've offered, in rebuttal, only further bolsters the case put forward in the OP and throughout the thread, if you would but take the time to review it, carefully, with an open-minded and objective, scientific, and analytical mindset. Thank you.


edit on 8-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


i read flutter is a function of TAS.. makes sense why an aircraft would be CAS limited at low altitudes and Mach limited at higher altitudes..

i cant confirm if its true though but is critical flutter speed roughly at a constant TAS for all altitudes?



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


No one hates you its just been pointed out over and over your wrong and you refuse to see it.Here ill try another way so you can understand the difference between a dive and level flight.

I want you to watch a video used for training pilots on the P51 what they are doing is specifically taking the craft over its design limits to show the pilots how to solve the problems that occur. There is a dive at 16:50 if you dont want to watch the whole thing. But it is very neat film so its worth watching but more to the point they purposely exceed the limits of the aircraft and the pilot teaches them what to do.




posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


1. A unmodified jet DID fly at the speeds stated and hit the WTC. In fact 2 did.
2. The Laws of Physics that brought down the WTC were also there that day in the form of gravity...

This is evidence. These are facts. Where is the proof that they were

1. Modified?
2. Gravity was not there that day.

Simple questions...very very simple.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
For those hoping to conduct their own research regarding the attacks which took place on September 11, 2001 -- please refer to the following video as a source of irrefutable facts and sobering truths.

What you'll see and hear, will shock you to your very core.

edit on 8-1-2014 by seasoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


dragonridr
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


No one hates you its just been pointed out over and over your wrong and you refuse to see it. Here ill try another way so you can understand the difference between a dive and level flight.

I want you to watch a video used for training pilots on the P51 what they are doing is specifically taking the craft over its design limits to show the pilots how to solve the problems that occur. There is a dive at 16:50 if you dont want to watch the whole thing. But it is very neat film so its worth watching but more to the point they purposely exceed the limits of the aircraft and the pilot teaches them what to do.


Ok, but please don't humor me like a kid who doesn't know what he's doing or talking about, and as to the way things have unfolded in this thread in terms of all the reactions/responses etc. i'm acutely aware of what's been going on, and all the tactics being used to obfuscate, and misdirect, and, if possible even to provoke a certain type and style of response, on my end..

That said, thanks for your apparent kindness..

I'm always up for a good video and i like black and whites, so thanks for the video and i will watch it.

However, when you talk about "limits", and repeat, "limits", in the context of flying beyond the "design limits" and learning dive recovery after exceeding those "limits" - you are misleading the readership, or trying to, because those limits are the max operating limits, in particular the Vmo or what used to be called, Vno, and still is on light aircraft.

See V Speeds
en.wikipedia.org...

Vd is another type of limit altogether, described here in the link below, and with a nice video (color) at the end too, showing the "flutter test" flight test, for the Airbus380 certification (presented in the OP of this thread), where they push the plane to the very edge of the flight envelope just before or right at the onset of flutter, which is the point where the airframe and wings start to wobble in strange ways and things start to rip off the airframe and the plane begins to experience structural failure. Of course they don't want to test beyond that limit, or the plane WILL crash and they will die if they can't get out, and it's not easy to get out of an out-of-control diving aircraft as you'll note they talk about, in watching that video.

In terms of reaching or exceeding Vd, we have the precedents, two of which we've examined, very carefully, on this page of the thread (see my rebuttal to S.O., above)

LINK
theflyingengineer.com...


Look, i have accessed and have been accessing, for this thread, the collective experience and extensive research, of some of THE most qualified, experienced, and credentialed pilots and aeronautical engineers, in the world today (even setting aside John Lear for reasons we've already discussed), two of whom logged flight time on the actual UA175 aircraft, registration number N612UA.

In other words, there's no need to try to move the bar, deceptively i might add, nor to "humor" me, which i find a little insulting because i'm not a kid and i'm no fool, obviously, but that said, thanks for the video because i always find this kind of thing to be fascinating, and it's nice to enjoy a break from continuously examining the various "discrepancies" involved in the horrors of the 9/11 events.

Best Regards,

NAM

P.S. While doing some research right here through the ATS 9/11 forums, i ran across a post that really captures the essence of what i wanted to convey here in this reply.


aethron

Thanks for the important information.

Wow...I didn't realise the membership of P4T consisted of so many highly qualified and respectable professionals..

Who's opinion am I more likely to trust...a group of highly experienced aviation experts with collectively tens of thousands of hours of on-the-job first hand knowledge?...or a pack of wannabe debunker internet posters who add nothing to the discussion but mockery, derailment, and bullying?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 8-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Well i was trying to be nice but as we can see thats beyond your capabilities apparently. So ill say it like it is your research is garbage because there is something thats impossible to prove. What was the flight tolerances of that particular aircraft because it no longer exists.For you to say it exceeded its parameters a couple of seconds before plowing into a building dude thats just stupid. See if the plane crashed as the pilot tried to recover it yeah it exceeded its tolerances. But thats not what happened is it what happened is the pilot only needed that plane to hold together long enough to slam into a building. So if rivets popped struts bent before the crash it has no effect on the result as long as it held together to hit its target.See you spent so much time trying to prove this you cant see the forest through the trees.

Now in the future when trying to talk with someone dont assume there intentions I saw your thread and you implied you were feeling picked on.However i see now i guess it was a rouse to garner sympathy and in actuality your just trying to manipulate people so that really is sad dont you think? Ill say this you better go get your engineers and pilots and get them on here because so far your showing inadequate for the job. Dont bother to respond to this im no longer going to follow this thread im done with this good night all.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


are you able to confirm with some engineers that critical flutter speed is in relation to TAS and not EAS??

ive read somewhere that indicated that flutter speed is more concerned with TAS as that is the true speed which air particles are passing the airframe.. i cant say how accurate it is though as im no aeronautical engineer..

www.vansaircraft.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Hello BenReclused (btw are you really a government shill?),

The text you sourced, is from the Navy.

navyflightmanuals.tpub.com...

How many Civilian Commercial Boeing 767-222's are operated by the US Navy?

From what i've been able to gather, the Navy is not regulated under the Federal Aviation Regulations. The Military have their own rules and modify civilian aircraft as they see fit ie: in the conversion/modification of civilian aircraft like the 767 series for tanker operations, etc.

It also appears from that source, that it's dealing with predominantly structural G-force issues, as well as operations at altitude, not near sea level.

With that said, from what i've found, the text is right, there is a 150% margin set, based on G limits.

See this video here, where the 777 wing broke at 154%

www.youtube.com...

G load limit margins are very different however, than airspeed limits, and margins.

Look up FAR 25.1505 and the associated FAR's (Federal Aviation Regulations) referenced in 25.1505.

Here you go.


Sec. 25.1505 Maximum operating limit speed.

The maximum operating limit speed (VMO/MMO airspeed or Mach Number, whichever is critical at a particular altitude) is a speed that may not be deliberately exceeded in any regime of flight (climb, cruise, or descent), unless a higher speed is authorized for flight test or pilot training operations. VMO/MMO must be established so that it is not greater than the design cruising speed VC and so that it is sufficiently below VD/MD or VDF/ MDF, to make it highly improbable that the latter speeds will be inadvertently exceeded in operations. The speed margin between VMO/MMO and VD/MD or VDFM/DF may not be less than that determined under Sec. 25.335(b) or found necessary during the flight tests conducted under Sec. 25.253.

[Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5680, Apr. 8, 1970]

www.astech-engineering.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Vd is another type of limit altogether... where they push the plane to the very edge of the flight envelope just before or right at the onset of flutter, which is the point where the airframe and wings start to wobble in strange ways and things start to rip off the airframe and the plane begins to experience structural failure.

That's not what the FAA says:

The FAA establishes two kinds of load conditions:

Limit Loads are the maximum loads expected in service. FAR Part 25 (and most other regulations) specifies that there be no permanent deformation of the structure at limit load.

Ultimate loads are defined as the limit loads times a safety factor. In Part 25 the safety factor is specified as 1.5. For some research or military aircraft the safety factor is as low as 1.20, while composite sailplane manufacturers may use 1.75. The structure must be able to withstand the ultimate load for at least 3 seconds without failure.

Vd is only an OPERATIONAL LIMIT, as are Vmo and Mmo. The Vmo/Mmo of a 767-222 is 360 KCAS/.86M. According to the above, a 767-222 should be able to withstand an ULTIMATE LIMIT of 540 KCAS/1.29M for at least 3 seconds before the aircraft starts to disintegrate. Just so you know, that would also take into account the effects of flutter.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   

choos
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


i read flutter is a function of TAS.. makes sense why an aircraft would be CAS limited at low altitudes and Mach limited at higher altitudes..

i cant confirm if its true though but is critical flutter speed roughly at a constant TAS for all altitudes?


Hi choos,

Now you're getting super technical, and while this is starting to get over my pay grade (not that i'm getting paid for any of this mind you), but i'll try to reply anyway from what i've been able to find out.

First referencing the A1NM TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET whereby the Vd established by flutter testing during certification, is:

VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.

TAS is CAS corrected for non-standard temp and pressure.

In other words, at sea level, TAS is pretty much equal to CAS.

As you climb, TAS increases, which is why EAS needs to be considered when understanding dynamic pressure based on altitude.

In short, TAS changes with altitude (anyone can find this out if they just try to use Google), but you are right that "flutter" is based on TAS, which is why one needs to understand EAS, and how to calculate it.

This is the very reason manufacturers set two limits based on altitude (/), as you know, where we have Vmo/Mmo and Vd/Md.

Therefore, if you want to see how TAS moves in relation to CAS, and in particular how that relates to the Vd/Md at different altitudes (as the pre-flutter threshold), you'll want to learn how to use the calculator, while noting the changes to the EAS.

In other words, you'll have to research this yourself, by using the calculator. Just remember to input all the appropriate variables, without trying to "gear" it when entering those variables.

www.luizmonteiro.com...

Just to be clear though, i presume that you are well aware, already, that EAS is based on TAS?

Have you looked up the definition for EAS (equivalent airspeed)? I don't think it's changed much since i posted it in the OP.

Here's a prime example to drive the point home.

TWA Flight 841's maximum speed during an uncontrolled, spiraling dive (which also brought about severe structural damage, albeit the plane did manage, barely, to recover and safely land) was .96 mach at 31,800 feet. (NTSB Report).

Yet, even when exceeding it's Mmo limit by .06 Mach or what amounts to about 30 knots over it's Mmo, and even in an uncontrolled spiraling dive ie: FAST - in terms of the airspeed and the aerodynamic pressures involved, it's EAS or equivalent airspeed, near sea level, was..checking... 332 knots EAS.




from post 2

So, dearest reader, consider that those who believe a standard, unmodified Boeing 767 can fly at 510 knots near sea level and remain stable/controllable, MUST also accept that the same airplane can fly in a controlled fashion, even in a dive,

- at 722 knots at 22,000 feet... or Mach 1.19, and 915 knots at 35,000 feet...or Mach 1.38 heading for 1.39 at 38,000 ft.

It's absurd.


Hope that helps.. choos.


Best Regards,

NAM


edit on 9-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


If only I had something to contribute. What the hell you''ve blown the OS
apart every way from Sunday as it is any way.
Hi five NAM, SnF !
edit on 9-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


yes i know what EAS is..

quest.arc.nasa.gov...

this link says that flutter speed will drop as altitude increases, but no where near as fast as EAS.. (if TAS was held constant as altitude increases?)

at 18000ft a 767 is given a Vd of 420KCAS.. thats a TAS of about 533K.. obviously there is going to be a safety margin associated with this, we just dont know it..

this is a "safe" speed at 18000feet.. we should not experience any critically damaging flutter at 533KTAS at 18000ft..

but if the flutter speed decreases with increasing altitude if we hold constant TAS .. it should increase with decreasing altitude, theoretically..

if the ground speed of the 767 was 510knots its close to 510KTAS at 700feet.. which is under 533KTAS.. so theoretically it should be possible right?

so why does the manufacturer set 420KCAS for upto 18000feet? personally i think its to keep things simple, we dont know the critical flutter speed unfortunately..
edit on 9-1-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


These I am sure are not above your pay grade.

1. A unmodified jet DID fly at the speeds stated and hit the WTC. In fact 2 did.
2. The Laws of Physics that brought down the WTC were also there that day in the form of gravity...

This is evidence. These are facts. Where is the proof that they were

1. Modified?
2. Gravity was not there that day.

Where is the proof that they were modified and that Newton took a dirt nap for a few hours?



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join