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 )

18 Pages V  « < 16 17 18  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
USAF 84 RADES Data For UA175 Indicates Mach 1 Speed?, edited title

UnderTow
post Dec 10 2007, 12:12 AM
Post #341





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 28-August 06
From: Virginia, USA
Member No.: 19



Correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't the 84RADES collection just the Mil radars. And NOT the FAA radars?

Cause I sure didn't see any reference or inclusion of Dulles and Reagan tracking.

And how many War Games were in play this incredible day of days?

Thanks,
-UT
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Dec 10 2007, 12:34 AM
Post #342





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (UnderTow @ Dec 9 2007, 11:12 PM)
Correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't the 84RADES collection just the Mil radars. And NOT the FAA radars?

Cause I sure didn't see any reference or inclusion of Dulles and Reagan tracking.

And how many War Games were in play this incredible day of days?

Thanks,
-UT

Good points.

Realy, the FAA data would be needed to compare it with the military ones. The FAA data are by many requested on FOIA, but all the requests still are ignored.

Anyway all the conclusions derived from the 84Rades can be made even without the FAA data. Especially the one derived from PLA for the "double blip" for "UA93" and the consistence of speed far breaching the Vmo for booth "UA175" and "AA11" - even for the period before the alleged hijack. Additionaly a theoretical speed above Vmo was also confirmed for the "stealth period" of "UA93" which probably directly sheerly contradicts the speed derived from the alleged FDR - at least that computed in the NTSB FDR report

Also the radar injection used in wargames was reportedly finished long before the alleged "UA93" crash.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 12 2007, 03:20 AM
Post #343



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Update on transonic wave drag:

I just located the following information on "wave drag" that I've been seeking for a while (Wikipedia is NOT one of my preferred sources, but this information looked legitimate to me).

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_travel

"Below supersonic speeds the energy radiated to drag is roughly proportional to the square of airspeed and the density of the air. However, as speeds approach the speed of sound, the phenomenon of wave drag appears. This is a powerful form of drag that starts at about Mach 0.8 and ends around Mach 1.2, (transonic speeds). Between these speeds the coefficient of drag (Cd) is approximately tripled. Above the transonic range Cd drops dramatically again, although it remains 30 to 50% higher than at subsonic speeds. This means that a supersonic aircraft has to have considerable extra power to overcome wave drag, although cruising performance above that speed is more efficient."

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_drag

"Wave drag is caused by the formation of shock waves around the aircraft. Shock waves radiate away a considerable amount of energy, energy that is experienced by the aircraft as drag. Although shock waves are typically associated with supersonic flow, they can form at much lower speeds at areas on the aircraft where, according Bernoulli's principle, local airflow accelerates to supersonic speeds over curved areas. The effect is typically seen at speeds of about Mach 0.8, but it is possible to notice the problem at any speed over that of the critical Mach of that aircraft's wing. The magnitude of the rise in drag is impressive, typically peaking at about four times the normal subsonic drag. It is so powerful that it was thought for some time that engines would not be able to provide enough power to easily overcome the effect, which led to the concept of a "sound barrier".

See also:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Th...c_Flow/TH19.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroelasticity

The increased "wave drag" makes me wonder how much velocity above Mach 0.86 at various altitudes/air densities the applicable Boeing high bypass turbofan pairs are ACTUALLY capable of generating...

Research has been done on supercritical airfoils and supercritical turbofan blades, but I didn't find many sources on these two subjects that didn't require a subscription service.

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Real...ercritical.html

My recent findings suggest that Boeing won't be too cooperative with our independent research and their employees have multiple reasons to keep quiet.

Also, does anyone know the current status of FAA radar data PUBLIC availability or FOIA updates? I'd like to cross-reference the FAA data with the USAF RADES data for all 4 of the 9/11 aircraft when available.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Dec 12 2007, 03:38 AM
Post #344





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (dMole @ Dec 12 2007, 02:20 AM)
The increased "wave drag" makes me wonder how much velocity above Mach 0.86 at various altitudes/air densities the applicable Boeing high bypass turbofan pairs are ACTUALLY capable of generating...


Also, does anyone know the current status of FAA radar data PUBLIC availability or FOIA updates? I'd like to cross-reference the FAA data with the USAF RADES data for all 4 of the 9/11 aircraft when available.

Yes, thats good point, I was already thinking about when I have found that 1st anomaly with above 0.95 Mach. I couldn't imagine, how possibly the subsonic engine can accelerate the plane to such speed even if the plane will dive straight down, so I started to be realy suspicious and curious. Then I have looked at the actual profile of the compressor chamber and came to the conclusion the 0.86 Mach is almost exactly the point before the airflow speed there would become naturaly supersonic and thus almost surely would destroy the compressor due to the shockwaves.

To the second part of the quote the FAA data still are not available to my knowledge. The crossreference of Rades84 data with the FDR NTSB report for the "UA93" already have found a large speed discrepancies between the two in speed during the "stealth" period, but I still didn't get any "UA93" FDR csv data from Rob, even I have asked him for, to confirm it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 12 2007, 03:38 AM
Post #345



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



A question for amazed! (or anyone else)-

What does approximately 35 minutes of continuous "negative phased" Ptech radar injects look like- primary radar stealth? wink.gif

Okay two questions- why leave the Mode C transponders on for about 15 minutes after AA77 and UA93 each go "stealth" off primary radar??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 12 2007, 10:44 PM
Post #346





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



dMole

I have no idea about the answer to your questions.

However the information about wave drag and drag at transonic speeds is interesting. Perhaps that is how they have achieved transonic speeds without afterburner in the F-22?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 12 2007, 11:25 PM
Post #347



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Hi again amazed!

The F-22A Raptor uses supercruise and thrust vectoring, making it a "fifth generation" jet fighter I believe. I don't have many publicly linkable details on the stealth, weapons, and avionics systems but let's just call them "highly advanced."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...t/f-22-f119.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/f-22-raptor5.htm

I posted links here to a few of the Russian Sukhoi and MiGoyan equivalents quite a while ago- they will definitely fly with the F-22, but I'd give the Russian planes about a 0.0005% chance of survivability in a "seek and destroy" matchup at long distances with the F-22. I once worked occasionally with a couple of Russian engineers/pilots/cosmonauts on a joint US/Russian program (long story) who gave me their assessment of the "new" Russian planes (there was probably a nationalistic pride factor here too).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Dec 15 2007, 09:20 AM
Post #348





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 12 2007, 09:44 PM)
dMole

I have no idea about the answer to your questions.

However the information about wave drag and drag at transonic speeds is interesting.  Perhaps that is how they have achieved transonic speeds without afterburner in the F-22?

As I mentioned earlier the Concorde powerplant can be informative, the AB provided a very modest boost compared to that common with military powerplants.

See:

Concorde powerplant info
B)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 26 2007, 03:01 AM
Post #349



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



I updated my charts from the USAF 84 RADES .XLS data (now sorted by radar station). The distance (and consequently velocity) should be more accurate using a Spherical Law of Cosines geodesic method. The few distances that I checked were within <= 0.25% compared to a Vicenty algorithm online. The Vicenty method claimed to have accuracy to +/- 0.5mm. Unfortunately, the Vicenty page appears to be down. I also added "Avg_5" velocity points that are an average of about 5 radar-derived velocities.

Another Vicenty calculator should be downloadable at:
http://www.fai.org/distance_calculation/

I also discovered a distance, range, azimuth calculator program that has altitude/slant correction on the RADES CD under :\rs3\3dRadarRngCalc.exe.

My updated UA175 charts are at:
http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2368635898.html

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2368636576.html

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2392578357.html

The original USAF 84 RADES .XLS data that I started from is in a .ZIPped .XLS file at:

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2392699235.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jimigunne
post Apr 20 2008, 07:01 AM
Post #350





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 6
Joined: 19-April 08
Member No.: 3,183



QUOTE (m-v-b @ Sep 22 2007, 12:52 PM) *
I have to go now, so just a crapy try.

:}




Youtube has removed m_v_b's video of flt 175. Any chance of obtaining it somehow?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 30 2009, 11:32 AM
Post #351



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (dMole @ Dec 26 2007, 01:01 AM) *
The original USAF 84 RADES .XLS data that I started from is in a .ZIPped .XLS file at:

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2392699235.html

That server I was using appears to have deleted all of my old files for me that I uploaded long ago.

Try this for the USAF 84 RADES "All 4 Events" zipped .XLS file:

http://s2.orbitfiles.com/index.php?link=57...2d1298d02bc5076

If that doesn't work, try:

http://www.freefileserver.com/155581

NOTE: The "as provided" USAF 84 RADES data does not have my speed approximation calculations, and the data has not been sorted since the originator prepared it.

[EDIT: Title has been edited from "Ntsb Report On Ua 175 Indicates Mach I Speed, Buried Report Reveals Secrets" entered by the OP in the interests of accuracy.]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V  « < 16 17 18
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th October 2019 - 04:18 PM