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: 27
95
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

soulwaxer
Evil exists in every culture, including our own.

I never implied that it didn't.




posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I'd been accessing their research and consulting with some of them all along

That's cool!

Ask them to answer what I've been asking you:
1) At what speeds does a 767-222's flight become unstable?

2) At what speed does a 767-222's airframe face imminent, and catastrophic, failure?

3) Can you provide a source that states what the Flutter Onset Speed of a 767-222 is?

4) Why do you insist that there is no "design margin", that extends beyond an aircraft's Vd?

See ya
Milt



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I have of course accessed their research and consulted with one or two of their pilots in the process of putting together the research contained in this thread

I find it rather interesting that your "pilot" buddies have led you to believe that the onset of flutter starts at an aircraft's Vd speed. Are they, REALLY, so damn clueless, that they are unaware of the following FAA requirement?


Aeroelastic Stability Envelope.
(1) For nominal conditions without failures, malfunctions, or adverse conditions, freedom from aeroelastic instability is required to be shown for all combinations of airspeed and altitude encompassed by the design dive speed (VD) and design dive Mach number (MD) versus altitude envelope enlarged at all points by an increase of 15 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude.

(2) The aeroelastic stability envelope may be limited to a maximum Mach number of 1.0 when MD is less than 1.0 and when there is no large and rapid reduction in damping as MD is approached.

To satisfy the above requirement, a 767-222 would have to remain "flutter" free, up to the minimum speeds of 483 KEAS or, depending on altitude, mach 1.0. Considering a difference of only 27 knots, it now seems quite probable for that aircraft survive a speed of 510 knots.

Run that by your buddies, and let me know what they have to say.

See ya,
Milt

edit on 179America/Chicago1RAmerica/Chicago2014-01-09T21:18:16-06:00Thursdayu16America/Chicago by BenReclused because: Typo



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



I'd been accessing their research and consulting with some of them all along,


id advise caution..

im not saying they dont know what they are saying but they are not engineers, they are pilots.. engineers set general limits to make flying easier for pilots. engineers need to baby pilots so that they dont do costly damage to their aircraft.. pilots have alot of knowledge when it comes to aircraft like why i fly like this at this speed, but when it comes to structural integrity they only know the limits given to them by the engineers..



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   

BenReclused
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Howdy "NewAgeMan" (TAYQ: Well, I disagree with the premise of your OP, so I must be...),

The only reason i asked


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

Was because of the description under your username.

Paid Government Disinfo Agent
SAIC


To be more specific, do you really work for SAIC - i mean it's entirely possible?, even probable from what i've seen just kind of reading between the lines between the lines..

I was just curious, that's all. If so, must be nice to get paid for this, albeit I don't agree with the nature of your premise or activity, either.

I'll be addressing your last two replies, on Saturday when i have the time. For now I'll just say that I think what you've offered in rebuttal is highly misleading for reasons that i'll explain then. No need to reply.

See ya,

NAM



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Well i was told by email that things got weird over here see it was right i do see that you apologized and ill commend you for it. Part of the mistake was after i posted the video i didn't have time to return to talk about it and you seem to be feeling frustrated. What was also in the video was explaining mach and how its calculated. Now what i was going to bring up is like in the video a mach number is the safe operating speed at any altitude.If an aircraft is rated at .86 mach. Now the speed of sound is rated at 761.1 at sea level. Well with some simple math we can see what its speed could be by its mach number. the math is .86 x 761mph = 654mph so this means a 767 could reach 654 mph at sea level. Lets do the same at 5000 ft the speed of sound is 747.9. So are math .86x747.9=643mph. Now the claim is that a plane cant exceed you said 510 knots at sea level which is 586 mph. So the plane in its dive never exceeded its mach number not once. Now correct me if im wrong but this is pretty simple math as demonstrated in the army training video so how am i wrong?

Came back to add the chart i used just so everyone sees where the math came from.

www.fighter-planes.com...
edit on 1/9/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


Among their membership are highly qualified aeronautical engineers as well. There are decorated veterans, retired US government officials, the list goes on and on there can be no doubting the credentials or credibility of the vast majority of their membership, regardless of the actions or behavior of one among their membership even if he's the co-founder of the organization.

Some of them are also on this list

patriotsquestion911.com...

There's no need to resort to ad hominem attack or to try to attack the credibility of everyone simply by association. As a "debate" tactic, it's really low, and i think there's a logical fallacy involved if i'm not mistaken in trying to put forward that argument, but i'm not into describing those terms in Latin and all that fancy verbiage just to try to make myself appear to be more intelligent.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Third time...answer a question man...you are defending it...

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

Your OP says a modified plane. How, where and what is your proof?



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


But you're doing the same thing, again (misleading the readership). It's not right, at all.

It's Vmo/Mmo because of low vs. high altitude in terms of the difference in aerodynamic pressures for reasons already covered in the OP and post 2 regarding EAS or equivalent airspeed. I don't intend for this to sound mean, but you're wrong, or mistaken, or something else...(which to me is rather troubling, given everything that's been discussed) Here's why.


NewAgeMan

Vmo/Mmo limits for a standard 767 are 360kts/0.86M. And this is how it is calculated...



www.luizmonteiro.com...

Note: Pressure Altitude.


Ref: A1NM TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET



VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points


I'm sorry, i don't mean this to sound harsh, but yours is the very same error made by Phage, early in the thread, by SO, in referencing John Bursill's escapade to refute John Lear and the no-planers, and by BenReclused, who claims to know everything there is to know because he's a government agent who works for SAIC.

It's just not true - that the Mach Mmo of .86M applies at all altitudes, that's false.


Best Regards (i really mean it, though),

NAM


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



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



Let us not forget, however, the "coincidence" of the 9/11 War Games Operations that were taking place on 9/11, some of which involved the very thing that happened ie: (simulated) hijacked aircraft being flown into landmark buildings...

More on that to follow, if given the opportunity to share that information and research here at the ATS 9/11 Conspiracies Forum.


This rang familiar but it took a moment to place, since you've certainly said one issue of your previous thread isn't what you feel happened now, and that's fair enough. We all come to change outlooks in ways.

However, I had seen where you'd explained in some detail and with links on just page 1 there, what the military war games theory is and how it relates. It is somewhat unique...I'd forgotten I'd posted on that page, since I hadn't been replying to this aspect of things. Hmmm...



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by dragonridr
 


But you're doing the same thing, again (misleading the readership). It's not right, at all.

It's Vmo/Mmo because of low vs. high altitude in terms of the difference in aerodynamic pressures for reasons already covered in the OP and post 2 regarding EAS or equivalent airspeed. I don't intend for this to sound mean, but you're wrong, or mistaken, or something else...(which to me is rather troubling, given everything that's been discussed) Here's why.


NewAgeMan

Vmo/Mmo limits for a standard 767 are 360kts/0.86M. And this is how it is calculated...



www.luizmonteiro.com...

Note: Pressure Altitude.


Ref: A1NM TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET



VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points


I'm sorry, i don't mean this to sound harsh, but yours is the very same error made by Phage, early in the thread, by SO, in referencing John Bursill's escapade to refute John Lear and the no-planers, and by BenReclused, who claims to know everything there is to know because he's a government agent who works for SAIC.

It's just not true - that the Mach Mmo of .86M applies at all altitudes, that's false.


Best Regards (i really mean it, though),

NAM


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



No your doing it again accusing people of misleading you really have problem with your debating skills dont you? Seem to get irrated when someone disproves your theory or more accurately the work your stealing claiming to be yours.Even though the pilots for 911 thuth did this well some of them others disagree. The mach number is set by the manufacture it varies by the medium as i showed you in the math. In the training video they explain this to pilots he even explains the mach number and how you can use it to show safe speeds at any altitude even tells him its posted in the cockpit and this was from the 1940s. This is nothing new an aircrafts rated mach number can be flown at any altitude safely. With altitude the mach number doesnt change period what changes is the speed needed to attain mach 1. The problem is you really are having a problem with physics and whats called flow dynamics. This is what causes Comprehensibility its caused as speed increases to the point where the object is moving as fast as the compression waves being pushed forward, These compression waves being of course sound waves. These waves change the flow of air over the wing reducing lift as long as the craft stays below the speed of sound like .86 for example there fine.

So effectively what your saying is that day physics went out the window . And apparently sound waves worked entirely diffrent on that day forcing the aircraft to break the sound barrier?
edit on 1/10/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


sorry my post was in reference to knowing about aircraft structures, limitations and safety margins..

so aeronautical engineers more specifically when trying to work out if 510KCAS/KTAS at 700ft will cause catastrophic failure due to flutter.. civil engineers may have similar knowledge although im not exactly sure..

to be more precise, a boeing engineer should know the safety margins used, a boeing engineer should know roughly the critical flutter speed for a 767..

a boeing engineer could give us more insight into how critical flutter speed reacts and can either confirm/deny what i asked earlier about flutter speed and TAS..



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


The only reason i asked

Was because of the description under your username.

Paid Government Disinfo Agent
SAIC

I was just curious, that's all.

I knew that. And, quite truthfully, I got a kick out of you questioning my "identity".


To be more specific, do you really work for SAIC - i mean it's entirely possible?, even probable from what i've seen just kind of reading between the lines between the lines..

Yeah, I've noticed that most "conspiracy theorists" tend to value what's "between the lines" more than they do tangible evidence. As far as I'm concerned, "reading between the lines" is only an excuse to ignore what was actually written.

Here's an example:

BenReclused (AKA: The Old Troll): Special Agent in Charge (SAIC)

That's the first line in my "signature", at the bottom of my posts. If one were to pay attention to what it actually says, they would see, quite clearly, that SAIC is only an acronym for "Special Agent in Charge".


I'll be addressing your last two replies, on Saturday when i have the time. For now I'll just say that I think what you've offered in rebuttal is highly misleading for reasons that i'll explain then.

I'd prefer to see answers to my questions, but I'll bet that I won't.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Ok i had a friend find what im looking for hes a flight engineer so let me post it!
heres the link www.flyingtigersgroup.org...

2.3 The Boeing 767 – 200ER Sample Vref Speeds (Flying Tigers)
1. Decision Speed i
V1 = 135 kts
2. Rotation Speed ii Vr = 143 kts
3. Take Off Safety Speediii V2 = 156 kts
4. Stall Speed in Clean Configurationiv Vs = 158 kts
5. Approach Speedv
Vapr = 180 kts
6. Speed at RWY thresholdvi Vat = 140-150 kts
7. Normal Operating Speed True Vno = 460 – 490 kts
7.1. Normal Ops Speed Indicated Mno = 0.78m – 0.80m
8. Stall Speed Full Extended Vfe = 117 kts

Now notice in what i posted the VNO is 490 knots but on your vg diagram you have it at 360 knots. So your VG diagram is wrong right from the start.Just so i dont lose any body VNO is the maximum structural cruising speed or maximum speed for normal operations. This is the safety limit set by Boeing which pilots are told not to exceed. So at 0 g the 767 can safely travel up to 490 knots or 563.882 mph. Now the caution area or in other words when they're going to set off alarms in the cockpit would be above this and you vg diagram doesn't even go that far.So where ever you got it from its a fake and not actually from boeing and if someone charted this themselves used what i will call a wag. Military term for wild a** guess.I guess you might want to show the 9/11 flight crew this operating manual so they can adjust their diagram.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I'm sorry, i don't mean this to sound harsh, but yours is the very same error made by Phage, early in the thread, by SO, in referencing John Bursill's escapade to refute John Lear and the no-planers, and by BenReclused, who claims to know everything there is to know because he's a government agent who works for SAIC.

If you want to launch a personal attack against me, that's fine, and I'm all for it, but be a man about it, and show a little integrity, by doing so directly.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 05:17 AM
link   

NewAgeMan
it may take an extraordinary degree, not only of courage, but also awareness, to take a stand for what we truly believe, in our innermost heart of hearts, is the right thing to do, and if we end up getting persecuted for it a little bit, or a lot, in the process, then so be it...

It's painful though sometimes I have to admit, but i can take it.


I get that you're trying to operate from a position of good intentions, but will you listen to yourself? Courage? Persecution? If you apply these terms to what you're doing and the minor flak you are taking for it, then you have no conception of the genuine sacrifices people have made for social justice, liberty and rights.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


With his couch surfing, porn star stalking, million sock puppet, kiddie debate style I imagine he'd fit right in.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


No one is misleading readership and no one really cares about the calculations that you are putting forward. Do you not get that? Even when others simply point out the flaws you misdirect or cry that everyone is ganging up on you. It is not ganging up it is called a coordinated response with alternate thought. You created the OP so you have to be ready, willing and able to entertain someone elses theory as much as people should review yours.

Fact - The planes flew as fast as they did.
Fact - They did NOT break up.
Fact - They were accelerating up until impact.
Fact - They hit the buildings and disintegrated
Fact - They were UNmodified jets with service records

Fallacy - They could not have gone the speeds they did
Fallacy - They were heavily modified airframes that could have been remotely piloted
Fallacy - They could not have been controlled at their impact velocities

I asked THREE times for simple answers and it seems that you cannot formulate an answer for yourself. Stop posting links, or referring to prior threads and answer the simple questions I have already posed. I mean, are they really that difficult?



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   

dragonridr
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

Ok i had a friend find what im looking for hes a flight engineer so let me post it!
heres the link www.flyingtigersgroup.org...
2.3 The Boeing 767 – 200ER Sample Vref Speeds (Flying Tigers)
...
7. Normal Operating Speed True Vno = 460 – 490 kts

Now notice in what i posted the VNO is 490 knots but on your vg diagram you have it at 360 knots. So your VG diagram is wrong right from the start.


That puts this to bed as a hoax.

The opening post implies the graph's data is contained in a document from the FAA. However, the actual document contains no such data. Here's the relevant page for a 767-200 from the linked FAA document.

Notice how it does not show "Vno" and states, "For other airspeed limits, see the appropriate FAA-Approved Airplane Flight Manual."

The relevant page from that manual has more information…

Which does indeed include the much higher "Vno" speed as discovered, and confirmed, by dragonridr.


That is deception by obfuscated omission, by whomever created the material on which the opening post is based.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 




Well done...Now that is how you Deny Ignorance...



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join