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


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

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

7 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Why Does Mick West Censor Posts At Metabunk?

MikeR
post Apr 16 2014, 06:44 PM
Post #101





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (Yost @ Apr 16 2014, 01:26 PM) *
I know the Metabunkers are gonna read this....


Best course of action: take ZERO notice of Mick West and his obscenely-$ubsidized
websites at Metabunk DOT crap.... same with ChemTrail oxyzmoronic Science.
Ignore the idiots.

Now that everybody with any vision remaining can SEE the chemical trails ....
Now that the rest of us can TASTE and SMELL the stuff.... the bunkers lose all cred.

Leave fracked Mick West to go out in the desert and eat paydirt

MikeR
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 16 2014, 07:07 PM
Post #102



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Yost @ Apr 16 2014, 06:16 PM) *
TWCobra claims the 737-700 has a VD of 380 KEAS
I have only been able to locate the VMO of the aircraft which is 340 KCAS


As you have witnessed many times, "TWCobra" has a habit of making up his own claims without source, while also claiming sources which contradict his own beliefs are "incorrect".

In short, "TWCobra" made the claim, "TWCobra" should be asked to support his claims.

This is one of the very reasons he ran from me on Reddit, invited me to "debate" him on a site in which he knows the owner/moderator will delete/censor/remove posts of the opposition, and refuses to confront us directly here.

When and if he actually posts a source for his claims, we will take it from there....

QUOTE
They also cite TWA 841, which apparently proves that aircraft can survive 6 g's, in response to UA93's G-Loads.


They also fail to understand a Flight Envelope.



(The EasyJet incident is also listed above based on the unsupported claims made by "TWCobra")

TWA841 also in fact suffered structural failure and the gear had to be extended to slow down in order to regain control. But "duhbunkers" love to omit this important information from their argument.

Hope this helps...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Apr 17 2014, 09:24 PM
Post #103





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



Thank you again.

Both aircraft have the same VMO, 340 KCAS, now would that mean that the VD speed would be the same for both aircraft?

Obviously the newer 737-700 wouldn't be weaker than the 737-400 when it is a decade newer than it.


In other news, a few weeks ago I found WeedWhacker's youtube channel from him commenting a link to Metabunk on some youtube video

It is obviously him, uses the same profile picture and same name as his Metabunk, and the govt loyalist site accounts.

I found this interesting comment on the discussion section of his youtube channel



As you can see, he finally reveals his name and where he lives.

Tim Duggan from Los Angeles

Time to look him up in the FAA database



What a suprise.

He does not even show up if I remove the Los Angeles part and search the whole state.

Now is it possible he moved to California?

Well see what happens when we search the entire USA for him

We get these three Tim Duggans







What do we see here, two of these people are only student pilots and one of them have barely any information at all.

They are obviously not Tim Duggan, who tells us he has certification for transport catagory aircraft and flew for continental.

I even repeated the above searches for Timothy Duggan, and still he does not show up.

Still, he does say he has retired, so I ask you Rob, when a pilot retires, is their information removed from the database?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 17 2014, 09:53 PM
Post #104



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Yost @ Apr 17 2014, 09:24 PM) *
Thank you again.

Both aircraft have the same VMO, 340 KCAS, now would that mean that the VD speed would be the same for both aircraft?


That would be speculation... but I suppose it could be a fair assumption. I'd rather have a source for the specific aircraft.




QUOTE
They are obviously not Tim Duggan, who tells us he has certification for transport catagory aircraft and flew for continental.

I even repeated the above searches for Timothy Duggan, and still he does not show up.


That is definitely the same guy. He has given his name at ATS, but only his first name... and he has openly admitted he is gay. I think this is the first time where I have seen him give his full name online. I had a feeling he no longer flew (if ever) due to some type of medical reason... but his information would still show up in the FAA database. The only reason I can think of why it wouldn't, is because his license was revoked by the FAA. After reading through his arguments over the years and lack of understanding of aeronautical knowledge, he probably screwed the pooch pretty bad and the FAA pulled his certificates.

If you are really feeling frisky... look up the scab list for Continental from their pilot strike in the 80's, I would almost bet Tim is on it and was a scab.... I'm sure it is floating around somewhere online.

QUOTE
.... so I ask you Rob, when a pilot retires, is their information removed from the database?


No. For example... John Lear has been retired for years.... all his certificates can be found in the above FAA database. And a long, impressive list it is.....

Pilot certificates do not expire unless revoked by the FAA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 17 2014, 10:10 PM
Post #105



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Re:TWA841

There are a lot of discrepancies and confusion in the NTSB report:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10810299

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10810359

Damage caused:

http://s675.photobucket.com/user/IGhhGI/li...rt=6&page=1

2cents

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Apr 18 2014, 10:31 AM
Post #106





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



It is impossible to have a rational discussion with a person in denial.

As to Vd, my guess is that it is but a calculated value, and not a demonstrated value.

Whether they would demonstrate that in a wind tunnel I do not know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Apr 18 2014, 03:02 PM
Post #107





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



I have decided to address more of JDHess post's.



So in the first post JDHess uses that debunked flight regulation.

There are no examples of a plane going over VD and suffering no damage at all or minor damage.

Air China 006 and TWA 841 experienced structural failure before VD, so it is expected for them to survive, though the damage was still extensive.

AdamAir 574 broke up in flight over it's VD and so did EA990 based on the FDR data and debris fields.

A DC-8 was able to past VD by 45 knots, but it was modified to achieve that.

TWCobra's VD's speeds are unsourced for the Easyjet 737-700 incident, so they are not reliable for establishing how far over VD that aircraft was.

For his next post JDHess thinks that the TWA 841 incident proves that a jetliner can survive 6 g's(He correct's the 8g error later)

What he does not understand is the concept of flight envelope, TWA 841 was past the G-Load limit, which is in the structural failure zone (and indeed the aircraft experienced structural failure)

However, it was not past VD (and therefore not in the structural failure zone in terms of speed) it was only 30 knots past it's VMO.

So failure by G-Loads alone will not always tear an aircraft into pieces, but if an aircraft is over G-Loads and over VD (As was UA 93 specifically) there are more fatal consequences.



Actually, the aircraft pulled up from the dive at 6,000 feet(according to the chart on page 39) which would be when those G-Loads were experienced according to that graph which contradicts some of the NTSB's statements.

As onesliceshort said, the 450 knot speed is contradicted in the NTSB report, which states that the aircraft fell from 39,000 feet to 5,000 feet in 63 seconds before control was regained

@34000ft per minute = @565fps = 385mph = 334 knots

(I'd appreciate your input on this one Rob, the 450 knot speed makes no sense, and of course JDHess claims you ignored it)



While it is true that the aircraft lost some control due to the slat configuration, it is also true that the failed slat caused it to enter it's dive, at which point VMO was exceeded and the rest of the aircraft lost control due to the excessive speeds.

I also explained that full structural failure was not expected of this aircraft, as it only had greatly exceeded G-Load limitations, but not speed limitations.

To sum it up JDHess.

We have an aircraft that only reached VMO and did not even exceed it suffering structural failure- Air China 006

We have an aircraft that only exceeded VMO by 30 knots and suffered structural failure - TWA 841

We have an aircraft that exceeded VD by 80 knots and suffered full structural failure(broke up in flight) - Adam Air 574

We have an aircraft that exceeded VD by 23 knots and suffered full structural failure according to the FDR file and debris fields- EA990

Yet on 9/11, three aircraft greatly exceeded VD by 80 to 90 knots and remained in control and structurally stable the entire flight until they hit their targets.

As you can see, real world precedent is not on your side.

This is what Rob's VG diagram has been trying to tell you, of course you and your friends claim it is fake when really you just do not understand what a flight envelope is.

Also Rob, I have found Weedy on this SCAB list

http://download.cabledrum.net/wikileaks_ar...t-scab-list.pdf

This post has been edited by Yost: Apr 18 2014, 03:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 18 2014, 03:42 PM
Post #108



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Yost

Re:TWA841

Information taken from the pdf linked to in my post

QUOTE
It claims that there was a descent from 39000ft to 5000ft in 63 seconds yet there are multiple contradictions. Just one of which is the altitude at which the pilot regained control. Allegedly at 8000ft.

There was also the issue of a steep, downward bank for 13 seconds before the descent rate of "63 seconds" began.

"The flight engineer was aware of the buffeting but was facing his panel and was not aware initially of the aircraft's attitude except that it seemed to be in a right descending turn."


It was pointed out to me that my numbers (the speed of descent) wasn't fast enough but the descent itself wasnt "34000ft" and the "downward bank for 13 seconds" isn't detracted (AFAIK). Duhbunkers make out that the aircraft dropped like a stone for "34000ft" and suddenly pulled up but the pilot statements make this a nonsense.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 18 2014, 07:42 PM
Post #109



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Yost @ Apr 18 2014, 03:02 PM) *
I'd appreciate your input on this one Rob, the 450 knot speed makes no sense, .....


The graph from the FDR tape shows 450 knots indicated airspeed at peak speed. This is 60 knots above the aircraft Vmo (in terms of EAS).. as compared to "UA175" which was reported as Vmo+150.

This is a 90 knot difference.... and is significant.

TWA841 suffered structural failure and loss of control... the gear had to be lowered in order to slow down the airplane to regain control with a highly experienced crew at the controls.

"UA175" remained stable and controllable hitting a target with a 25' margin for error each side of wingtip, with a pilot at the controls who had zero time in type and less experience than one who was refused to rent a Cessna 172 because he couldn't control it at 65 knots. That is, if you blindly believe what the govt has told you.




QUOTE
Also Rob, I have found Weedy on this SCAB list

http://download.cabledrum.net/wikileaks_ar...t-scab-list.pdf


Just as I expected.

It fits his character....

Here is a famous passage which describes people like Tim "weedwhacker" Duggan....

After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, and the vampire, he had some awful substance left with which he made a scab.

A scab is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a water brain, a combination backbone of jelly and glue.

Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles.

When a scab comes down the street, men turn their backs and angels weep in heaven, and the devil shuts the gates of hell to keep him out.


read the rest here - http://dawn.thot.net/scab.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Jun 13 2014, 07:17 PM
Post #110





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



So it's been two months now Rob, and not a peep from the Metabunkers ever since I wrote my last rebuttals to them here.

I know it mean's they've lost and don't want to admit it, they were all over this thread for days on end.

But they'll probably continue to post the same bullshit about your "Fake VG Diagram" and that misinterpreted FAR regulation because that's just the nature of debunkers

You can never teach them.

Still, it kind of angers me that TWCobra's post where he says the FAA's VD speeds for 767 are wrong that I responded to long ago is still there, and even being "thumbed up" by the Metabunkers.

It makes me sick to think that they are actively endorsing false information there, and I think it's why TWCobra has not come back, he was caught red-handed, all the guy could do is post un-sourced claims and just cry "Gish Gallop" at anyone who refuted his nonsense.

Weedy was exposed as a pilot who had his license revoked by the FAA, so I think he is too embarrassed to post about us anymore (though i could be wrong on that, he's pretty persistent).

And Mick still has the thread up endorsing his blatant misinterpretation of that FAR section. JDHess has been pretty quiet too, he hasn't defending himself to what I posted here either.

I know it's kind of late for this, I just felt this thread ended a bit abruptly so I decided to give this update.

I see you've made SKYGATE available for free on Youtube, that's great!

I might buy it to support this website, it was the film you and I spent this whole thread defending after all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Jul 8 2014, 09:59 PM
Post #111





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



So I found this image in my Jeppesen textbook today.



Turns out it's the exact same thing as http://www.thefinerpoints.net/wordpress/wp...vg-diagram5.jpg (the speeds are there because it's for a smaller aircraft)

TWCobra once claimed that "the structural failure zone is not specified in any regulation or regulatory compliant V-N diagram for any aircraft"

I'd like to see him tell me how a graphic from a Jeppsen textbook is not "regulatory compliant". Let it also be noted that Jeppesen is a Boeing company!

This post has been edited by Yost: Jul 8 2014, 10:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 9 2014, 02:48 PM
Post #112



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Yost @ Jul 8 2014, 09:59 PM) *
Turns out it's the exact same thing as http://www.thefinerpoints.net/wordpress/wp...vg-diagram5.jpg (the speeds are there because it's for a smaller aircraft)


<duhbunker> FAKE! FAKE!! FAKE!!11!!@1!</duhbunker>

laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Aug 5 2014, 03:58 PM
Post #113





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



Well Rob, looks like there is finally new activity on the Metabunk thread, TWCobra is once again trying to prove his aeronautical knowledge to everyone.

This time he is once again asserting that the 15 or 20 percent increase in VD speed applies in a dive, despite the phrase "equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude" being present.







Of course, TWCobra has still failed to admit to the fact that the speeds for a 767 are 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft according to the FAA and not 420 KEAS.

This post has been edited by Yost: Aug 5 2014, 04:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 5 2014, 06:04 PM
Post #114



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



TWCobra says - "....the flight envelope is expanded using test points that require both criteria, but not at the same time."

False.

The word "and" clears up any confusion.

"equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude"

In short, if the word "or" were used, then "TWCobra" would be correct.

Example - "equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number or constant altitude"

"TWCobra" should know this if he is truly an airline Captain. Specifically.... if he was ever trained in Exemption 3585, or even flight and duty time requirements, under Part 121. The words "and"/"or" are used very specifically in the FAR's. Only those without proper training, or forgot their training... or don't pay attention during training and would rather rely heavily on sharper flight crews.... confuse the interpretation. I know a few Captains like that.... lazy.... don't really give a crap because they are close to retirement... collect the paycheck and go home... god bless em...

Furthermore, the 1.15 (or 1.20) so-called "margin" is never done during a flight test. It is only calculated on paper, ie. it is a theory, based on a brand new airplane without any cycles.

Aircraft are only required to flight test Vd during certification and the following page with the associated A380 video confirms such a statement.

http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/

According to "TWCobra" and his.. ahem.... "test pilots", and their interpretation of FAR 25.629 - the A380 in the above linked video should have been Flight tested to Mach 1.

TWCobra is either flat out lying regarding his "test pilots", or just hasn't a clue... or both. His last so-called "test pilot" confused Vd with Vmo.

And these are some of the very reasons "TWCobra" refuses to debate us/me in a mutually agreed upon venue in which the moderator doesn't delete/remove rebuttals (as does Mick West), and ran from me at reddit.



Edit: I almost forgot to add this. The 777 design limit load reference also demonstrates how much "TWCobra" lacks in FAR interpretation. When and if he wants to actually debate the topic with real and verified pilots.... he too will then learn more regarding FAR 25. The first hint for readers in which "TWCobra" hasn''t a clue, should be the words "I am guessing....".

In other words... If "TWCobra" had actually read FAR 25 (or even FAR 23), he wouldn't have to 'guess'. And then would understand why he is also wrong with regard to his 777 reference at the "top right of the envelope".

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Aug 5 2014, 07:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Aug 5 2014, 08:49 PM
Post #115





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



Really informative post there Rob, of course, the Metabunkers are still thumbing up his post and the usual suspects, "WeedWhacker, and "JDHess" are still praising him like a god of aeronautical knowledge, and still fail to realize that many of their posts were responded to months ago on here, and are still without a single rebuttal.

I also have some more points to bring up regarding TWCobra's alleged method that his "test pilots" use for determining the VD speed based on the regulation (which, as you have pointed out, is not actually tested in the real world.)

He claims that his test pilots fly at a constant EAS in a climb, and then fly at a constant altitude while the EAS increases.

The problem here is quite a big one

In neither of the scenarios is the aircraft being stressed, which is obviously needed for establishing a reliable VD speed.

You cannot have a constant airspeed/constant altitude in a dive.

A real aircraft test for VD is seen in the Airbus test video, where the aircraft is actually put into a dive and being stressed.

The rationale for this strange method eludes me, and that leads me to believe TWCobra has made all of this up.

This post has been edited by Yost: Aug 5 2014, 08:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 5 2014, 09:19 PM
Post #116



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Yost @ Aug 5 2014, 08:49 PM) *
A real aircraft test for VD is seen in the Airbus test video, where the aircraft is actually put into a dive and being stressed.

Exactly.

QUOTE
.... that leads me to believe TWCobra has made all of this up.


Yes.... I feel the same way. Any real aviator (or even the layman) will also understand that "TWCobra" has shot himself in the foot when he claims his 'test pilots' perform the requirements under 25.629. All one has to do is look at the requirements for Mach 1 under FAR 25.629.

"TWCobra" is either a farce... or someone suffering from severe cognitive dissonance.

Either way.... it is clear why he ran from me at reddit... and proposed a 'debate' on "Metabunk" in which the owner ("Mick West") has proven he is not a fair moderator.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Aug 5 2014, 09:59 PM
Post #117





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 5 2014, 08:19 PM) *
All one has to do is look at the requirements for Mach 1 under FAR 25.629.


I admit I am a bit confused here, mind explaining this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 5 2014, 10:15 PM
Post #118



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Yost @ Aug 5 2014, 09:59 PM) *
I admit I am a bit confused here, mind explaining this?


I am glad you asked this question....

"TWCobra" claims that he knows "test pilots" who perform Flight Testing under the requirements under FAR 25.629.

One of the requirements under FAR 25.629 is -

"The enlarged envelope may be limited to Mach 1.0 when MD is less than 1.0 at all design altitudes..."


So, in short, if an aircraft has a Vd/Md of perhaps Mach 0.96 (as shown in the A380 video), "TWCobra" is also claiming that 'test pilots' will fly the new airframe to Mach 1, based on FAR 25.629.

"TWCobra" is full of crap..... and I have proven it with his past "test pilot" who confused Vd with Vmo.

One should ask "TWCobra" how the Mach 1 limitation is tested under Part 25.629 based on his conversations with "test pilots".

I would ask... but it is clear "Mick West" would delete it.... because clearly "Mick West", nor "TWCobra" are interested in the truth on this matter....

Someone should also ask the Chief Pilot at Qantas if Mike Glynn is suited for flying an aircraft since it is clear he has no respect for Vmo, and that an aircraft can survive at Vd + 90.

As a side note - For those wondering, "TWCobra" claims to be Captain Mike Glynn at Qantas. I only say this because "TWCobra" has expressed anger for never addressing him with his real name. So, now he get what he wished.....

What's next, Captain Mike Glynn will be plowing through T-Storms topped above FL600.... so he can get home earlier.... based on the precedent he believes was set by the "9/11 Hijackers"?

Who wants that ride?

To the readers.... never get on an airplane with Captain Mike Glynn if you fly Qantas as it is clear he has no respect for aircraft limitations set by wind tunnel and flight testing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Aug 18 2014, 02:29 PM
Post #119





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



Today a new member has shown up in the Metabunk thread and posted this excerpt from a document written by a "test pilot".





He has also posted the same thing in this thread on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11358038

The excerpts above come from this document.

http://www.mmopa.com/gallery/288_Sean%20Ro...%20Envelope.pdf

It appears to show the 50% Load Factor margin (which Seger still thinks applies to VD) as well as the supposed 15% VD speed margin.

The test pilot "Sean Roberts" says that the margin is demonstrated in a flight test, of course it does not say how it is demonstrated.

He has also posted these images from this FAA document: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/A...c25-629omni.pdf in the DU forum .



Any input on this?

This post has been edited by Yost: Aug 18 2014, 02:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 18 2014, 07:27 PM
Post #120



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Yost @ Aug 18 2014, 02:29 PM) *
It appears to show the 50% Load Factor margin (which Seger still thinks applies to VD) as well as the supposed 15% VD speed margin.


Exactly. This is nothing new. I tried to explain the same thing to Seger and the idiots at DU. Hopefully Seger now understands there isn't a 1.5 Factor of Safety beyond Vd and that 1.5 only applies to Load Factor.

The 1.15 factor above Vd (used to be 1.2) is for flutter and is based on theoretical calculations of equivalent airspeed at both a constant mach and constant altitude as pointed out in FAR Part 25.629. In other words, not maneuvering, diving... etc. In further words, no changes in static and dynamic pressure which would induce flutter. It is not a required flight test. Nor do I know of any test which pushed the aircraft beyond Vd. Even the first "test pilot" which "TWCobra" allegedly quoted understands this....

Vd/Md is a required flight test.

Again....
http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/

In short, any "test pilot" who thinks 1.15 is tested in flight, must also think the A380 in the above link was tested to Mach 1?

Well, no, it wasn't. It was tested to Vd/Md. In fact, the airplane broke due to flutter prior to Vd/Md and had to be modified to reach Vd/Md.

We are just going in circles now....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 >
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: 14th December 2019 - 01:19 AM