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
Ua175 Final 4 Min. And 40 Seconds, Reconstruction from NTSB report - pilots please comment

ogrady
post Nov 7 2008, 02:11 PM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 141
Joined: 1-October 07
Member No.: 2,291



This is an interesting video reconstruction I just found. Should be of interest to pilots and engineers. Shows impossibility of reconciling official reports and official videos of the day's events. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/user/911conspiracyTV
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 7 2008, 03:15 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,829
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I just viewed the video once and here are my first thoughts... (keep in mind, we are now working on Pandora's Black Box - Chapter IV - Flight Of AA11 and UAL 175").

Fair presentation, poor narration. Average layman will be completely lost.

I especially like the footage obtained regarding flutter. If you know the person who made that video, please have them contact us. I also sent them a message via YT.

As for the Conclusion... "According to the NTSB... this is fake" is not the proper conclusion imo.

The proper concluson is "The videos showing near level flight conflict with data provided by the NTSB."

No surprise there though..

Thanks for posting...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ogrady
post Nov 11 2008, 01:20 PM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 141
Joined: 1-October 07
Member No.: 2,291



True, this is not the most exciting or easy to understand video ever. The robo-voice and dry presentation almost made me turn it off.

That being said, I understood from it that a commercial aircraft would not have been able to make the descent described by the data and that the data never showed the plane leveling out as the 'videos' of the event did.

What I would like to know is how this data is generated. Is it just completely fabricated, are bleeps inserted on radar that can be copied? Do you have any idea?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 11 2008, 03:50 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,829
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



The descent is a non-event. Meaning its nothing major as far as strict descent is concerned. A steep descent, yes... but survivable. The forward airspeed however is another story. It is excessive for a 767, meaning it exceeds Vmo (Velocity Max Operating). Although, this does not mean the aircraft automatically starts falling apart once over that speed. We are still trying to determine structural failure speeds for the 767.

The data was determined by radar, according to the NTSB, it does not support the near level descent shown in the numerous videos which captured the WTC attack according to the above video (i still have to crunch the numbers myself).

Hope this helps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 11 2008, 08:02 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



NTSB UA175 Flight Path Study is at:

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path%20_Study_UA175.pdf

NTSB Brief is at:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA01MA063&rpt=fi
-----
FBI 9/11 Hijack Timeline is at:

http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneou...911Timeline.pdf
-----
9/11 Commission Staff Report is at:

http://www.archives.gov/legislative/resear...rt-sept2005.pdf

9/11 Commission Staff Statement is at:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statem...statement_4.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Nov 16 2008, 01:24 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (ogrady @ Nov 7 2008, 03:11 PM) *
This is an interesting video reconstruction I just found. Should be of interest to pilots and engineers. Shows impossibility of reconciling official reports and official videos of the day's events. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/user/911conspiracyTV



I am the maker of this video. The original is here http://www.youtube.com/user/skyarcher. 911 conspiracyTV is a mirror.

Below is the transcript for the robo voice used in the video. Clarifications welcome.

Findings of reconstrutction..

1. Point G in NTSB report, 4min 40 secs from 'impact' is at 24,600 feet and 42 miles away from the WTC. To hit the tower from this point we need a
ground speed of 540 miles an hour ALL THE WAY DOWN.

2. Descent rates after Point G(according to NTSB report) are:
1st min 3600 feet per min
2nd min 3100 feet per min
3rd min 5000 feet per min
4th min 6000 feet per min
last 40 secs 6300 feet per min

3. Plane starts simulation at Point G (24,600 feet) and doing 327 knots (533 miles per hour ground speed). 747 Exceeds VNE at 17,000 ft and breaks up at 12,000 ft 15 miles from WTC. 767 would have exceeded VNE at 19,000 and probably broken up higher than 12,000 feet ft.

4. 'Radar' readings from the NTSB report state that in the last 40 secs before 'impact' the plane is supposed to have descended 6300 feet . That is 157 feet per sec, or over half the height of the WTC 785 feet in the last 5 secs. MOST IMPORTANTLY the report does not show the plane LEVELING OFF IN ANY WAY.. which contradicts some but not all of the TV footage of the last 5 secs of FLight 175 which show a dark smudgy object supposed to be a plane coming in ON A LEVEL PATH..no way near the 785 ft last 5 sec descent of the NTSB. There are some other TV shots which DO show a plane 'dive bombing' into the towers...

Hope this helps

Thanks

Skyarcher




TRANSCRIPT



flight 1 7 5, pictured here, is central to the nine eleven story. the story goes that it was hijacked,
descended rapidly and was deliberately crashed into the world trade center.
In the same way as many people do not believe
a plane hit the pentagon, many pilots do not believe that flight 1 7 5 could have descended 24,000 feet in 4 minutes 40 seconds.
this is reconstruction of that descent. fasten your seat belts sentinent beings .

the first thing we need to reconstruct this dive, is the get our hands on the most realistic and detailed wide bodied
large jet simulation available. the 7 4 7 and 7 6 7 share almost identical flight envelopes and very similiar V speeds.
THis product is officially licenced by the boeing company.

The official story of flight 1 7 5 is here, at the national security archive website. In August 2006, the national
transportation safety board released flight plan studies for 3 of the aircraft supposedly used in the nine eleven attacks.
we will be using the, radar, data, from this n t s b report to reconstruct flight 1 7 5.

according to the report, the aircraft takes off at point, a, boston airport, and flies along its assigned flight
path until point, f, here it turns left and descends to point, g, this point is where this reconstruction will begin from.
the four letter codes, in red, with the letter k at the beginning, are all airports.
the n t s b report also gives us the time each point is reached, at the bottom of this chart, and the altitude for each point
on the right of the chart.

Here we are at point, f, at 31,000 feet, just before the aircraft is supposed to have deviated. Point, f, is on a track
of 2 5 1, between waypoints ELIOT and SUZIE. the aircraft in the display is represented by the white triangle. the airports,
are the same as in the n t s b report, here, in blue writing. we will use this airport KWRI
to position the aircraft.

airports KABE KWRI and KEWR form a triangle. we will be able to position are aircraft
in the simulation with great accuracy by positioning it in exact relationship to these airports. KEWR is
just beside the world trade center.

To simulate the aircrafts descent, we need the exact rate of descent. we know that from point g, to impact is
4 minutes, 40 seconds, so by drawing simple lines plotting each minute after point g, against altitude, we get the
rate of descent, in feet per minute, as shown.

here we are at point, g, with the simulation paused, the aircraft has already descended from 31,000 feet at point f, and we are now
at 24,700 feet. follow the mouse, here are the 3 airports which form a triangle like in the n t s b report,
and their relative position to the nose of the plane.

if we super impose the n t s b report over the aircraft display, you can see we are now at point, g, this point
is 42 miles away from the world trade center.

42 miles in 4 minutes 40 seconds is a ground speed of 540
miles an hour. we must keep this ground speed up all the way down to hit the towers.

our speed indicator, on the left, indicates a speed of 327 knots, which is a ground speed of 464 knots, shown here
as g s, in the top left corner of the display, which is a ground speed of 533
miles per hour.

o k, lets rock and roll.

in the first minute after point g, the aircraft descends at a rate of 3,600 feet per minute.

to see exactly what is going on with the aircrafts displays, i will now shift to the virtual cockpit view and record
the descent in one continuous stream.

on the left of the display, is the speed indicator, and this big red line here at, 360 knots, is the absolute maximum,
safe, speed for this aircraft to travel. on the right of the display is the rate
of descent indicator, you can see it is at 3,600 feet per minute right now, and above it, the altitude indicator showing
we are descending rapidly.

on our display which shows our position, you can see the airport KEWR getting closer, the world trade center is just to the right
and a little bit ahead of this airport, as shown in the n t s b report.
to get the rate of descent exact, i am using the autopilot to control the vertical speed. in the second minute after
point, g, the plane descends at a rate of 3,100 feet per minute

weather conditions play an important role in the performance of any aircraft. nine eleven was a clear day with very little
wind, so this simulation is weather neutral. for example, there was no huge tail wind pushing the aircraft along and
increasing its ground speed.

as you can see, we are now at 20,300 feet and approaching 350 knots. 350 knots is the maximum safe speed for a 7 6 7
aircraft, so at this point, just under 20,000 feet, a 7 6 7 would over speed. we are in a 7 4 7, which has a higher
maximum speed and still have another 10 knots to go before over speed.

the problem is this, when an aircraft over speeds, which it can, when put into a dive, its structural integrity is
not guaranteed. we will look at the consequences of going over speed after this reconstruction. technically, a jet
should not travel over 250 knots under 10,000 feet, because its wind, shield would break, if hit by a bird. we are still
over 20 miles from the world trade center.

in the third minute after point, g, the aircraft descends at a rate of 5,000 feet per minute, this is a very high
rate of descent. this aircraft, a 7 4 7, has been within its safe flight envelope up to this point, but immediately,
with this high rate of descent, hits the red line and goes over its maximum safe speed.

going over this red line in an aircraft is like walking into the valley of death, sorry, flying into the valley
of death.

as the speed increases the force placed on the airframe is above what it was designed to take. just as a person
cannot walk as fast through water as through air, a plane has a much lower ground speed nearer sea level, because
the air is so much denser. this is why many people appear to be confused about indicated air speed and ground speed.
this needs another video to explain the difference.

but, very briefly, at point f, earlier, we were travelling at 320 knots which at
31,000 feet gave us a ground speed of 577 miles per hour. 320 knots at sea level is a ground speed of just 366
miles per hour.

in the fourth minute after point, g, the aircraft is supposed to have descended at a rate of 6,000 feet per minute.
with the engines running at only 46 per cent thrust, we have increased our speed mainly through the pull of gravity,
at this point , the structural integrity of the airframe is comprimized. we are still approximately 15 miles from the
world trade center and 12,000 feet up in the air.

a 7 6 7 would have broken up at, a higher altitude, based on its lower maximum speed.

in every aircraft, large or small, there is a big red line on the speed indicator VNE which stands for
velocity, never, exceed,

aircraft manufacturers use the word, never, for good reason. AIRCRAFT OPERATORS SPECIFY A NEVER EXCEED SPEED,
BECAUSE OF, FLUTTER. f l u t t e r, Flutter, as a phenomenon of flight engineering,
means a vibration that can amplify into structural damage. AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS, WHEN TESTING THEIR AIRCRAFT,
BRING UP THE SPEED SLOWLY AND IN TINY INCREMENTS. they are testing for flutter. watch.

in this simulation, the aircraft exceeds its never exceed velocity when it is still nearly 17,000 feet up in
the air. once it goes above this speed, its airframe is not certified. the aircraft breaks up at 12,000 feet.
remember, a 7 6 7 would have broken up at an even higher altitude. this unfortunate plane is what it might have looked like.


while researching this reconstruction i came across something amazing. the official story of flight 1 7 5
as told by the n t s b report completely contradicts the television footage we were shown of the event.


according to their radar, flight 1 7 5 descends an amazing 6,300 feet in the last 40 seconds. according to the
radar, the aircraft does not level off, i repeat does not level off in any way.


6,300 feet in the last 40 seconds, 157 feet per second, 785 feet in the last 5 seconds,
over half the height of the world trade center in the last 5 seconds.

amazingly, there are other television shots which show a plane hitting the tower in a steep dive, like in the n t s b report, but
this footage contradicts the other level flight footage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 16 2008, 09:21 PM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,156
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Skyarcher

ALL aircraft and powerplant limitations can be exceeded without having the aircraft disintegrate or bringing about the proverbial end of the world.

Yes, the structure might be compromised, but depending on a bunch of factors, it might not be.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ogrady
post Nov 17 2008, 03:06 PM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 141
Joined: 1-October 07
Member No.: 2,291



Skyarcher! Thanks for joining us here to explain your video.

I probably haven't made myself clear when I've asked this question before on this forum. What I would like to know is in what physical form (i.e. computer printouts of 010101; screen captures of radar dots; line by line printouts of altitude, etc.) do you receive the data that you use to make your video? What sort of guarantee of authenticity does it have? Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Nov 17 2008, 05:51 PM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 16 2008, 10:21 PM) *
Skyarcher

ALL aircraft and powerplant limitations can be exceeded without having the aircraft disintegrate or bringing about the proverbial end of the world.

Yes, the structure might be compromised, but depending on a bunch of factors, it might not be.




Hello amazed, thanks for responding.

Here are some points for you to answer:

1. you state that it is relatively safe for 'ALL' aircraft to exceed their limitations. To make such a sweeping claim you must have had access to and studied a lot data from aircraft engineers and manufacturers. Could you point me to the data you have used to make this claim as I would be very interested in viewing these results?? What do aircraft manufacturers and operators say about exceeding these limitations??
2. By 'Limitations' what exactly are you talking about? Vmo? Vne?
3. You say the structure 'might' be comprimised .. but also that it 'might not be'. Can you describe the 'bunch of factors' involved where an aircraft would exceed its limitations ,( again which ones?) and in one circumstance be structurally damaged and in another not?
4. By what factor can a plane exceed its limitations before it suffers structural damage. Where did you find out this data??
5. In this simulation, the aircraft exceeds not only its Vmo but its Vne while still very high up still and very far from its target. I am presuming you have seen the video...so you will note that the plane does not exceed its limitation ( here Vne) for a short period. Once it goes over this limitation ( dubbed 'Never' by the manufacturer ), the amount by which the aircraft is exceeding the limitation is increasing with every second. How does this scenario impact the probability of structural damage according to the results you are basing your answer on?


regards

Skyarcher
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Nov 17 2008, 06:00 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (ogrady @ Nov 17 2008, 04:06 PM) *
Skyarcher! Thanks for joining us here to explain your video.

I probably haven't made myself clear when I've asked this question before on this forum. What I would like to know is in what physical form (i.e. computer printouts of 010101; screen captures of radar dots; line by line printouts of altitude, etc.) do you receive the data that you use to make your video? What sort of guarantee of authenticity does it have? Thanks.



Hi ogrady, glad to be here )
The reconstruction is based entirely on the official story of flight 175 as told in the NTSB report. The links to this report are in topic post.
This is a 'physical' report which has been reproduced on the internet and is available for download and peer review.

The 'radar' flight path is from the NTSB report.
The altitude and time along the flight path are given in the NTSB report. I worked out the descent rates by drawing simple lines of time against altitude.

I position the plane in the simulation as best I can in relation to the 'radar' flight path and perform the descent as near as possible to the official descent rates.

This is explained in the video. I hope I have answered your question. Is this what you mean?

regards

Skyarcher
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Nov 20 2008, 07:13 PM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 7 2008, 04:15 PM) *
I just viewed the video once and here are my first thoughts... (keep in mind, we are now working on Pandora's Black Box - Chapter IV - Flight Of AA11 and UAL 175").

Fair presentation, poor narration. Average layman will be completely lost.

I especially like the footage obtained regarding flutter. If you know the person who made that video, please have them contact us. I also sent them a message via YT.

As for the Conclusion... "According to the NTSB... this is fake" is not the proper conclusion imo.

The proper concluson is "The videos showing near level flight conflict with data provided by the NTSB."

No surprise there though..

Thanks for posting...


Hello Rob,

I am intrigued by your response. Could you explain yourself more please? I understand where you are coming from... but.... i use the words 'according to' when I am talking about the NTSB report. And, according to the NTSB report, which reports a plane descending at an incredibly rapid rate of 6300 feet in the last 40 seconds, the video footage of this event as portayed on TV must be fake ( according to the official story of the event - the NTSB report). The videos of Ua175 clearly show a plane coming in on a level plane and the NTSB report does not???????????????
So, according to the NTSB report, from their perspective, the TV footage must be fake, because it 100 per cent conflicts with their report??

How long does it take to get a response on this forum??

Please clarify your comments.
I do not understand the motivation behind them.

Skyarcher
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 20 2008, 07:27 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,829
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Hi Skyarcher,

The conclusion "According to the NTSB.. .this video must be fake", is not a conclusion made by the NTSB.

As stated above, the proper conclusion is "The NTSB data conflicts with the video's....."

Which results in several possibilities since data sets do not agree (NTSB data vs Video).

1. The Videos are fake

or...

2. The NTSB data is fake

or...

3. The NTSB data is manipulated

or...

4. The videos are manipulated

or..

5. All of the above

and...

6.Possibilities which havent been thought of yet....

The most alarming evidence presented in your video in my opnion is that the NTSB data and the video's of approach/impact conflict when they should seemingly agree.

Keep in mind i only watched your video once and am preparing to study this issue in depth very soon, including producing a presentation of the NYC events which will be the Fouth Chapter of the Pandora's Black Box series...

As for how long it takes to get a reply on this forum... depends upon schedules, priorities and all around general life unexpectencies.

Hope this helps...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Nov 20 2008, 08:38 PM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 20 2008, 08:27 PM) *
Hi Skyarcher,

The conclusion "According to the NTSB.. .this video must be fake", is not a conclusion made by the NTSB.

As stated above, the proper conclusion is "The NTSB data conflicts with the video's....."

Which results in several possibilities since data sets do not agree (NTSB data vs Video).

1. The Videos are fake

or...

2. The NTSB data is fake

or...

3. The NTSB data is manipulated

or...

4. The videos are manipulated

or..

5. All of the above

and...

6.Possibilities which havent been thought of yet....

The most alarming evidence presented in your video in my opnion is that the NTSB data and the video's of approach/impact conflict when they should seemingly agree.

Keep in mind i only watched your video once and am preparing to study this issue in depth very soon, including producing a presentation of the NYC events which will be the Fouth Chapter of the Pandora's Black Box series...

As for how long it takes to get a reply on this forum... depends upon schedules, priorities and all around general life unexpectencies.

Hope this helps...




Ok ROB, I understand that you are a moderator here and wish to clarify things.

That said,

follow this link
http://www.yourdictionary.com/according-to

'ACCORDING TO' Synonyms

prep.

in accordance with, as, to the degree that, in consonance with, conforming to, just as, in keeping with, in line with, in agreement with, consistent with, congruent with, pursuant to, in proportion to, commensurate with, on the authority of, as reported by, as stated in.

Does 'according to' mean quoting someone directly???
Are the the NTSB actually saying that their report contradicts the video footage??
As reported by, as stated in the NTSB Report, the TV footage of this event must be fake.
This is my meaning - not that THEy are claiming that their report contradicts the TV footage. I think this is very obvious?????


The delay in response. I am not talking about you Rob. I am talking about member 'amazed' who left a very, in my opinion, unfactual comment regarding the exceeding of limitations of aircraft. As someone with 2,000 + comments I thought he might come back quicker.


Thanks, the play's the thing Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.


Skyarcher.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 20 2008, 08:53 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



If it helps Skyarcher, I'm quite convinced that amazed is a pilot with decades of experience in both rotary and fixed-wing aircraft, based upon my observations and my private communications directly with amazed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Nov 20 2008, 09:17 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 20 2008, 09:53 PM) *
If it helps Skyarcher, I'm quite convinced that amazed is a pilot with decades of experience in both rotary and fixed-wing aircraft, based upon my observations and my private communications directly with amazed.



I do not doubt it for a second.

Proof is in the pudding and the pudding here is what people say and put forth.

I guess i am simply asking him to share his experiences of going over Vmo and Vne with us.. what happened to the plane? Because, he intimated that it was routine and relatively safe to do so, while my simulation of this experience resulted in break up and death.

Aircraft manufacturers do not make the whole plane out of the same manufacturing process of the black box. It is not fiancially feasible to do so. Aircraft do something very, very specific. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything comes back to money.. go over this speed etc. and you are fu*ked... dont do this, land flapless and you are fu*ked..fired..dead.. operate the aircraft within its safe limitations... ok . do your job. that is why the story of hi jackers swooping eagle like from the sky is like fish being milked in a dairy. these lads were supposedly unable to fly a circuit in a cessna?

what would the Buddha say?
Skyarcher
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 20 2008, 09:29 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,829
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (skyarcher @ Nov 20 2008, 09:17 PM) *
I do not doubt it for a second.

Proof is in the pudding and the pudding here is what people say and put forth.

I guess i am simply asking him to share his experiences of going over Vmo and Vne with us.. what happened to the plane? Because, he intimated that it was routine and relatively safe to do so, while my simulation of this experience resulted in break up and death.


Mod note: This post has been updated and expanded upon with the recent release of "9/11: World Trade Center Attack". See full film here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19732



Skyarcher,

First off, please curb the attitude and show respect in this forum.

Secondly, im not just a "moderator" here. I am the Co-Founder of the organization Pilots For 9/11 Truth. You can see me along with many of our core members pretty smiles in uniform here.

Finally, amazed is a respected member of this forum. Please reply accordingly and try to refrain from excessive profanity.

With that said, Amazed never said anything about exceeding Vne/Vmo/Mmo as being "routine". He was merely pointing out that when an aircraft exceeds such limitations, it does not immediately fall out of the sky and he is correct. Vne/Vmo/Mmo are limitations set by the manufacturer with a safety margin built in. Actual structural failure speeds can only be obtained from the manufacturer wind tunnel testing which we have been trying to gain access t such data with not much success to date. Microsot Flight simulator (or any PC Based game.. and yes.. it is a game) although a decent trainer for such things as instrument procedures, shooting approaches.. etc... it is not a good program to compare to the effects of aerodynamics in actual flight. Also, a zero flap landing (flapless) is very safe to do and is routinely practiced on all types of aircraft. It does not result in death.

In closing, please browse the forum and use the search feature regarding discussion of Vne/Vmo/Mmo/Vd and other aircraft speed limitations.

Regards
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Nov 22 2008, 08:37 AM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 20 2008, 10:29 PM) *
Skyarcher,

First off, please curb the attitude and show respect in this forum.

Secondly, im not just a "moderator" here. I am the Co-Founder of the organization Pilots For 9/11 Truth. You can see me along with many of our core members pretty smiles in uniform here.

Finally, amazed is a respected member of this forum. Please reply accordingly and try to refrain from excessive profanity.

With that said, Amazed never said anything about exceeding Vne/Vmo/Mmo as being "routine". He was merely pointing out that when an aircraft exceeds such limitations, it does not immediately fall out of the sky and he is correct. Vne/Vmo/Mmo are limitations set by the manufacturer with a safety margin built in. Actual structural failure speeds can only be obtained from the manufacturer wind tunnel testing which we have been trying to gain access t such data with not much success to date. Microsot Flight simulator (or any PC Based game.. and yes.. it is a game) although a decent trainer for such things as instrument procedures, shooting approaches.. etc... it is not a good program to compare to the effects of aerodynamics in actual flight. Also, a zero flap landing (flapless) is very safe to do and is routinely practiced on all types of aircraft. It does not result in death.

In closing, please browse the forum and use the search feature regarding discussion of Vne/Vmo/Mmo/Vd and other aircraft speed limitations.

Regards




HI Rob, nice photo) I am aware of who you are and I want to congratulate on this great site and the work you do.
Rap on knuckles taken humbly. Apologies for colorful language, it was used for dramatic effect. It wont happen again.

The attitude comes from hosting a Youtube channel where you can sometimes get a lot of abuse and must fight your corner against mis-information comments and from those who have lost the ability to think critically. Too much TV ) THis forum has a lot of experts on it and I respect that and hope to learn more from them.

I take your point that aircraft have a safety margin built in, which is above the manufacturers official flight envelope. For a large jet to be flying at 540 miles an hour (ground speed) at low altitude, it would be flying above its Vne of around 400 miles per hour (ground speed) by a huge factor. THis is why I was very curious and interested as to the claims made by amazed. 2 or 3 % above Vne I could understand - which I accept was his point. 25% above Vne however I dont believe. And this does not even take into account that the control surfaces would have been ripped off way before this point if the pilot made any sudden inputs on the stick.

I also take your point that a game is a game. I must add though, that the PMDG simulation has flight characteristics which operate within a very narrow margin of operator's specifications. THis is confirmed by Boeing who official license this product. It is not the stock aircraft found in Ms flight simulator.
It would be great to do a real life re-enactment with parachutes and all but not in a position to do this at the moment!

I have some points to make about the TV footage but will put them in another post.

Thanks Rob and best of luck

regards

Skyarcher
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 22 2008, 10:24 AM
Post #18





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,156
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Skyarcher

I consider your questions above to be a normal and courteous response.

"Limitations" is a section in every aircraft flight manual. They are determined by the aircraft manufacturer during the certification process, and pertain to the aircraft and its various systems such as engines.

I did a five year stint as a production test pilot in small airplanes, NOT transport category aircraft. I still perform that function on a part time basis. One of the duties there is to take the airplane out to its Vne.

Those limitations are often calculated values arrived at by engineers, and by regulation there is a "cushion" built in to accomodate the given that sooner or later some pilot will exceed limitations.

By accident or on purpose I have exceeded various operating limitations more times than I care to think about, and caused very little damage in the process.

This is not to say that it is a common practice. It is not.

My only point is that limitations can be and are exceeded, and many times there are no serious consequences. But sometimes there are, as wings are torn off, airframes are deformed and engines trashed.

Welcome to the forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 23 2008, 03:46 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Speaking as a former military aerospace engineer, test pilots are raving f*cking lunatics IMHO. [It is an "odd" relationship but I have utmost respect for them, and I used to fish with one of Chuck Yeager's former maintenance crew chiefs]. Let's just say I think we frequently each surprise ourselves. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 23 2008, 04:23 PM
Post #20





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,156
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Does this mean I am in the lunatic fringe? blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 24th August 2017 - 05:44 AM