IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed, For Immediate Release

VirPil
post Sep 17 2011, 06:38 AM
Post #21





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 23
Joined: 16-September 11
Member No.: 6,281



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 17 2011, 12:59 PM) *
Max speed is different from Vd.

Sure, but those 650 km/h seems to be Vd speed, because it's the highest number in the manual and above 10300 m. there is 0.95M limitation, also Vmo (this is definition from Tu-154 flight manual) is 600 km/h and 0.86M.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 17 2011, 12:59 PM) *
Max operating speed of the 767 is 360 knots. Vd is 420.

It actually means, that alleged 510 speed provides air pressure (510/420)^2 = 1.47 times (fix me if I'm wrong) more than Vd=420. I guess that Vd speed is speed airframe is able withstand to. Is there chance that aircraft has 50% safety factor? Or 420kn. is pure design calculated speed without any margin?

Thanks.

This post has been edited by VirPil: Sep 17 2011, 06:42 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 17 2011, 06:54 AM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (VirPil @ Sep 17 2011, 07:38 AM) *
Sure, but those 650 km/h seems to be Vd speed, because it's the highest number in the manual and above 10300 m. there is 0.95M limitation, also Vmo (this is definition from Tu-154 flight manual) is 600 km/h and 0.86M.

It actually means, that alleged 510 speed provides air pressure (510/420)^2 = 1.47 times (fix me if I'm wrong) more than Vd=420. I guess that Vd speed is speed airframe is able withstand to. Is there chance that aircraft has 50% safety factor? Or 420kn. is pure design calculated speed without any margin?

Thanks.


The "Safety Factor" as defined by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics is the yellow caution zone below between Vmo and Vd.



There is no additional "Safety Factor" above Vd.

Your speculation is moot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VirPil
post Sep 17 2011, 09:59 AM
Post #23





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 23
Joined: 16-September 11
Member No.: 6,281



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 17 2011, 01:54 PM) *
There is no additional "Safety Factor" above Vd.

Does it mean that Vd is "ultimate load" as described in http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-301.html and http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-303.html?

I've tried to make conclusions from http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-335.html and http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance...E/25-335-1a.pdf, but it's not clear to me. blink.gif Any reference to Vd as "ultimate load"?

If it's really such load w/o safety margin, it means that 767 has no chance fly 510 kn.Question arises why NTSB provides such data, assuming it's faked. Why they didn't say some more real speed, e.g. 400-420knots? huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 17 2011, 01:37 PM
Post #24



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (VirPil @ Sep 17 2011, 10:59 AM) *
Any reference to Vd as "ultimate load"?



Your reference is in the diagram above. Anything beyond Vd is considered the structural failure zone as defined by the Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics.

This is also confirmed by precedent in terms of EA990 and several other aircraft accidents.

Have you viewed our film "9/11: World Trade Center Attack"? It's all thoroughly explained.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 17 2011, 02:28 PM
Post #25





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



VirPil

Having been out near the redline a fair amount of time, and over it a few times, I understand your point about exceeding limitations. I worked as a production test pilot for several years, and I think you make sense.

But even before that, it seems that the radar data is utterly corrupted.

Welcome to the forum!

This post has been edited by amazed!: Sep 17 2011, 02:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 17 2011, 02:53 PM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (amazed! @ Sep 17 2011, 03:28 PM) *
VirPil

Having been out near the redline a fair amount of time, and over it a few times, I understand your point about exceeding limitations.


Agreed.

I would like to make it clear that one knot over Vd does not guarantee structural failure. All it means is that you are now a test pilot flying in what is defined as the Structural Failure zone.

VirPil,

V-speeds are based on wind tunnel and flight testing.

See here for examples.



When going through certification, the aircraft prototypes are subject to high speeds in the wind tunnel. When the aircraft develops an onset of buffeting, flutter, instability, CG v CP.. .etc, Vd is set. If they go too far with the wind tunnel, the above video is what you get.

Then the test pilots go out and try to do it in the real airplane. If they can get to Vd without problem, then Vmo is set using the safety margin calculations mandated by the FAA.

If they experience any problems prior to Vd, a new and lower Vd is set, which in turn lowers the Vmo, or the aircraft prototype is modified to achieve those speeds.

Line Pilots are not given Vd performance speeds in their aircraft manuals as the manufacturer doesn't want pilots anywhere near Vd. They are only given redline, ie. the barber pole.. Vmo (and other lower speed limitations, such as Va, flaps, gear.. etc)

At least, this is the way it is in the USA. Not sure about Russian aircraft certification.

Aircraft can come apart at any speed. The important speed to remember for the 911 aircraft, is Va/Vra - ie, Maneuvering speed. As the aircraft were maneuvering.

According to reports, an A300 lost it's tail when maneuvering and attempted to recover from a wake turbulence upset out of JFK losing control and killing all on board (American 587). This was at departure speeds.

The speeds reported for the 911 aircraft are impossible if the aircraft were standard 767/757's.

This can only mean either the aircraft were modified to achieve such excessive speeds over the standard aircraft and maintain control, or the data is wrong, in which case there is a serious problem at the NTSB, a govt agency tasked with ensuring the safety of the flying public.

Hope this helps...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
datars
post Feb 14 2012, 12:52 PM
Post #27


New Terrorist in Town


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 997
Joined: 14-August 06
From: S.F. Bay Area
Member No.: 6



Good stuff Rob

-Chuck

PS Rob do you think you can come out to the Conspiracy Con 2012 http://conspiracycon.com

And if you make contact with Brian just maybe you can become a speaker there

(925) 449-6844
conspiracycon@comcast.net
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VirPil
post Feb 20 2013, 07:43 AM
Post #28





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 23
Joined: 16-September 11
Member No.: 6,281



Another example of real speed of 737-400's structure failure:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/...control-222430/

QUOTE
the speed reached Mach 0.926 during sustained nose-up elevator control input while still in a right bank. The recorded airspeed exceeded Vdive (400 kcas), and reached a maximum of approximately 490 kcas just prior to the end of recording.”

It says that around 20sec before the end of the recorded data, the aircraft suffered a “significant structural failure” due to speeds that were beyond the 737’s design limitations, but by that time it was already in a “critically uncontrollable state”.


This post has been edited by VirPil: Feb 20 2013, 07:44 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 22 2013, 09:36 AM
Post #29



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (VirPil @ Feb 20 2013, 07:43 AM) *
Another example of real speed of 737-400's structure failure:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/...control-222430/



Add yet another aircraft which is unable to exceed its limitations by 150 knots and remain stable, controllable or hold together....


Thanks VirPil...


More listed here....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed_part2.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Feb 23 2013, 02:37 AM
Post #30





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 445
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (VirPil @ Feb 20 2013, 10:13 PM) *
Another example of real speed of 737-400's structure failure:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/...control-222430/


Dear 'VirPil'

Have you considered the, Boeing 727?

You may be interested to have a look at a video on youtube, Jennifer Spell video EXPOSED.

The "aircraft" that appears to be contained in the messy image of what appears to be meant as a Boeing 767 (by size) is not a 737 nor 727, but it was and still is, a very robust aircraft, with quoted figures, of rated speed at 1700 feet of 620mph.

By consideration of the aircraft in the image, it is moving forward at 25.5 feet per frame, which computes as 521 mph at 30 frames per second.

This is well below 620mph, giving the aircraft every chance of surviving, while descending at 5 degrees.

Also the aircraft does not appear to be banked at all, as it would have had no need to have, and retained its wings within the east perimeter of the south face.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VirPil
post Aug 4 2014, 09:36 AM
Post #31





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 23
Joined: 16-September 11
Member No.: 6,281



I found Vd test video of A380:
http://theflyingengineer.com/2012/03/18/di...20-dive-speeds/

So aircraft should be able to flight with Vd speed, thus we can suggest that some minimal margin is present.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 5 2014, 05:57 PM
Post #32



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (VirPil @ Aug 4 2014, 10:36 AM) *


Yes, this is covered in our new presentation "9/11: Simulations" and in this thread.....
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22665

QUOTE
So aircraft should be able to flight with Vd speed, thus we can suggest that some minimal margin is present.


There is no requirement for a margin of safety beyond Vd for an aircraft which is maneuvering. However, can an aircraft fly 1 knot past Vd and survive? Yes.

Can an aircraft fly 90 knots past Vd and remain controllable and stable? Allegedly, only on 9/11/2001, when physics and aerodynamics were apparently suspended.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 29 2014, 03:48 PM
Post #33



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Have had some questions regarding this thread so I am bumping....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pacem
post Nov 3 2014, 11:20 AM
Post #34





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 27-August 14
Member No.: 7,915



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 5 2014, 11:57 PM) *
Can an aircraft fly 90 knots past Vd and remain controllable and stable? Allegedly, only on 9/11/2001, when physics and aerodynamics were apparently suspended.

The 767 VD in the A1NM certificate is in KCAS, at 09:02:10, 470kts ground speed at 5000ft is 440KCAS, no ? So VD+20k or VD+5%.

The last radar point is at 09:02:24, what time of impact used the NTSB to compute the final acceleration from 470k to 510k ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Nov 3 2014, 07:41 PM
Post #35





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 5 2014, 02:57 PM) *
Can an aircraft fly 90 knots past Vd and remain controllable and stable? Allegedly, only on 9/11/2001, when physics and aerodynamics were apparently suspended.


Might it have been possible for a highly modifed 767-type aircraft, with hardened structures (Kevlar composites), leading wing edge mods, and more powerful engines?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 6 2014, 03:31 PM
Post #36



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (pacem @ Nov 3 2014, 11:20 AM) *
The 767 VD in the A1NM certificate is in KCAS, at 09:02:10, 470kts ground speed at 5000ft is 440KCAS, no ? So VD+20k or VD+5%.

The last radar point is at 09:02:24, what time of impact used the NTSB to compute the final acceleration from 470k to 510k ?


pacem, please see this link to refresh your memory....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22772

Also, please spend some time reviewing our wok... and the work of the NTSB.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 6 2014, 03:33 PM
Post #37



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Nov 3 2014, 07:41 PM) *
Might it have been possible for a highly modifed 767-type aircraft, with hardened structures (Kevlar composites), leading wing edge mods, and more powerful engines?


EagleEye, Please spend some time reviewing our work, specifically, the underlined sentence on the top of our home page which has been there since 2006.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th September 2017 - 11:16 AM