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

rob balsamo
post Nov 2 2009, 04:20 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

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



Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed

For Immediate Release

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.

Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.

Full detailed analysis, including analysis of a recent simulator experiment performed, and interviews with United and American Airlines 757/767 Pilots can be viewed in the new presentation, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" available only at http://pilotsfor911truth.org. Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn't lie. Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

[1] http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx...ivalentAirspeed, http://www.csgnetwork.com/machonecalc.html (Equivalent Airspeed and Mach One Calculator to convert Mach into True Airspeed based on altitude/temp and then into Equivalent Airspeed)
[2] http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/instruments/q0251.shtml
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SKYDRIFTER
post Nov 2 2009, 08:57 PM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 32
Joined: 16-August 06
From: SEATTLE
Member No.: 9



Boeing hasn't used wind tunnels in decades. What is needed is the demonstrated certification data for the 767. Specifically the dive stability limit speed. That speed will indicate the controlability of the aircraft at a specific speed - within reason. The speed factor has no meaning, besides exposing another lie. The planes hit the buildings; controlled demolition brought down three buildings (including WTC-7).

We know that all the official offices were lying from beginning to end. The only appreciable truth that I've discovered, so far, is that the two airplanes hit the tower on the first try. That took the hands of skilled jet pilots.

After that, it's an exercise in "Eliminate the impossible..."

The only particularly compelling issue is the fate of the other two planes; they didn't crash; that's for damned sure.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 2 2009, 10:32 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (SKYDRIFTER @ Nov 2 2009, 08:57 PM) *
Boeing hasn't used wind tunnels in decades.


"The original 767-200 first entered into airline service in 1982" - Wiki


2009 - 1982 = almost 3 decades. smile.gif

In other words, the 767 design underwent wind tunnel testing.

Also...

Wind-Tunnel Testing Under Way for Boeing 7E7 - June 2003

"On the 767 program, we performed wind-tunnel tests with more than 50 different wing configurations," said Mike Bair, senior vice president of the 7E7 program. "On this program, we likely will test no more than a dozen."


You may want to check your sources SKYDRIFTER. Boeing still uses wind tunnels.

QUOTE
What is needed is the demonstrated certification data for the 767. Specifically the dive stability limit speed. That speed will indicate the controlability of the aircraft at a specific speed - within reason. The speed factor has no meaning, besides exposing another lie.


Agreed. And we have it. See A1NM Supplemental Type Certificate for the 767. VD is 420 Knots for the 767. It's all covered in the presentation.

QUOTE
The planes hit the buildings;


This is not disputed. What is disputed is if the aircraft were stock, 767's. According to EA990, they were not.

QUOTE
controlled demolition brought down three buildings (including WTC-7).


Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not have expertise in building design. For such issues, we defer to Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth.

QUOTE
We know that all the official offices were lying from beginning to end. The only appreciable truth that I've discovered, so far, is that the two airplanes hit the tower on the first try. That took the hands of skilled jet pilots.


Again, undisputed, and confirmed by those who have time in the actual aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. Both are featured interviews in our new presentation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SlackerSlayer
post Nov 3 2009, 02:10 AM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 39
Joined: 4-January 08
From: San Diego California USoA Earth Sol Milkyway Universe
Member No.: 2,625



Paraphrased,

mod edit: quote tags, time and name removed.

'No 767s hit those towers at the officially claimed airspeed'

Would these claimed airspeeds be within the structural capabilities of the 737-400 series? From what I have seen of the two types, you could not tell the difference between a 767-200 or a 737-400, not in those videos so far released. If you examine the Boeing graphs for the two model types, there are basically three small differences in the profiles, ignoring overall size differences. Has anyone that has the back ground examined the relative size of the flights in question from the available videos? Could it be the smaller of the two models, two 737s that were used?


Radio talk host A.Jones released a video shortly after the attacks of peopel on the streets. This video had the voice of a woman clearly stating "that's not an American Airlines" (paraphrased real close if not the exact words used), but it was supposed to be the United flight flying over her. This always bugged me, why was the voice confusing the first plane for the second if she was supposed to be witnessing the second.

Far too much official obstruction of the crimes and too much mud from others to accept anything told by anyone. Which means Where Is That Grand Jury?




ps, the transponder signal went off because the remote recovery system uses that radio path for the remote pilots live flight data feed. Nice slow 'S' flight for "AA11". Atta do that uh?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 3 2009, 02:21 AM
Post #5



Group Icon

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



Slacker,


1. Please do not place quote tags, time and names around words never said by the person you claim to quote. If you are to 'paraphrase', there is obviously no time, name, or specific quote as a paraphrase is your opinion/interpretation of a specific statement. Please use discretion in your posting.

2. You are asking us to speculate. I'll let others answer regarding P4T speculation.

3. I disagree with your paraphrase. 767 have many different models, perhaps some which are classified?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 3 2009, 09:43 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

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



Excellent job Rob,
Thanks for the layman wording.
Time to spread this info again.
It has always been a ┤muddy┤ area for me when discussing the ability for a 757 to
travel at such high speed at low altitude with detractors. They always ask for the ┤math┤
and claim that there are no prior examples to verify this. Now we have both smile.gif
Cheers big ears!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
diesel737
post Nov 3 2009, 10:58 AM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 27-August 07
Member No.: 1,861



Yes, highly skilled pilots indeed!

OR, I don't think we can rule out remote or automated precision control features such as laser guided, or a satellite based system similar to RNP airline style program.

Those speeds are complete crap. IF, they are real, there is no way any of those rookies could handle the stick.

My two cents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Nov 3 2009, 05:01 PM
Post #8





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Well in my opinion..........

Since we know the whole thing is a lie....... nothing is out of question
except that which can be proved and disproved with evidence and fact.

Precision Guidance could have easily been accomplished though any number
of technologies that have existed for many years. INS (IRS) guidance using ILS
receivers and transmitters to a predetermined GPS/FMC or Lazer designated location
and/or using instant live feed video and autopilot servo's as a means to hand fly it remotely
into the towers just like this......... in 1984

Nasa Crash Test of a Boeing 720 (707-020)


Or the UAV/Preditor program that was started in the 90's ....

UAV Program
Preditor2

And if there is still any doubt........
The QF-4 full scale, fully capable, remote fighter......also since the 1990's.

QF-4 Phantoms
QF-4 Kills


ALL of which, require extensive modification and testing.

IMO, the speeds and maneuvers eliminate the original airframes and instead
insert "drone look-a-likes" capable of these excessive speeds and maneuvers
in the puzzle of the Twin Tower Impacts.

This post has been edited by aerohead: Nov 3 2009, 05:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Nov 3 2009, 05:11 PM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,198
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (aerohead @ Nov 1 2009, 09:01 PM) *
The QF-4 full scale, fully capable, remote fighter......also since the 1990's.

Back in the 1960s and 70s Sea Vixens and then Phantoms shot down remote control Meteors.

Then as the Sea Vixen was being withdrawn a drone programme was started based on them and it is that we have to thank for there being a surviving airworthy Sea Vixen XP924 (G-CVIX) that works around the airshow circuit. Was in Red-Bull colours for a few years.



No, its not using the Sea Harrier Ski-Jump!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Nov 3 2009, 05:12 PM
Post #10





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



BTW Rob,

Great job on the film. Very well made.
Your hard work is appreciated.

-Aero
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Nov 3 2009, 05:15 PM
Post #11





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Nov 3 2009, 05:11 PM)
Back in the 1960s and 70s Sea Vixens and then Phantoms shot down remote control Meteors.

Then as the Sea Vixen was being withdrawn a drone programme was started based on them and it is that we have to thank for there being a surviving airworthy Sea Vixen XP924 (G-CVIX) that works around the airshow circuit. Was in Red-Bull colours for a few years.



No, its not using the Sea Harrier Ski-Jump!



Thanks Omega,
Wow is that ugly tho ohmy.gif

haha
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Nov 3 2009, 05:22 PM
Post #12





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,198
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (aerohead @ Nov 1 2009, 08:15 PM) *
Thanks Omega,
Wow is that ugly tho ohmy.gif

haha

Only when you are spotting on the range and they come blasting in overhead loosing off 144 x RPs in ripple!

Otherewise they have a kinda beauty of their own.

I used to use a TAG line:

Hunter for elegance
Sea Vixen for pugnacity
Phantom for clout.

The Sea Vixen was my first front line a/c in 1966 and on HMS Victorious an old WW2 veteran but much modified by then.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SKYDRIFTER
post Nov 3 2009, 05:38 PM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 32
Joined: 16-August 06
From: SEATTLE
Member No.: 9



My apologies to everyone about the wind tunnel. I was apparently misinformed. I've taken a tour of one of the Boeing computer centers, where the data was strictly calculated. I can't recall where I got the apparently wrong information about the wind tunnels.

If you look to FAR Part 25, there are essentially two dive speeds, one is a minimum FAA certification requirement, the other is the flight test demonstrated speed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SlackerSlayer
post Nov 3 2009, 08:04 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 39
Joined: 4-January 08
From: San Diego California USoA Earth Sol Milkyway Universe
Member No.: 2,625



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 1 2009, 05:21 AM) *
Slacker,


1. Please do not place quote tags, time and names around words never said by the person you claim to quote. If you are to 'paraphrase', there is obviously no time, name, or specific quote as a paraphrase is your opinion/interpretation of a specific statement. Please use discretion in your posting.

2. You are asking us to speculate. I'll let others answer regarding P4T speculation.

3. I disagree with your paraphrase. 767 have many different models, perhaps some which are classified?


Sorry for the laymen English usage.


What is to speculate for those with the background in photo analysis to determine what the parameters are for those planes in the video. It is either the size of a 767 or the smaller 737. Maj. Stublebine please take over here?? Are those speed / flight parameters to high for the 737 air frame? I realize any single craft can be modified to take a rougher flight and survive, like those they take through hurricanes.

The line under my name, can you change it to 'less than a student pilot'? The closest I've been to being a pilot was that I had read every book on the flight of helicopters by the time I was in the eighth grade, that the San Diego Library system had to offer.

This post has been edited by SlackerSlayer: Nov 3 2009, 08:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 4 2009, 04:40 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

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



http://www.opednews.com/articles/9-11-Spee...091102-795.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Nov 4 2009, 05:21 PM
Post #16





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,198
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 2 2009, 07:40 PM) *

That's great Rob.

How many hits does that site get I wonder?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VirPil
post Sep 17 2011, 12:19 AM
Post #17





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 2 2009, 11:20 PM) *
Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. ... Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. ... Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn't lie.

Hi!

First of all, guys, you do a great job, but I have some remark to your calculations.

Well, 425 knots at sea level has equivalent dynamic pressure for 0.99M of EA990 at 22,000 feet, it's right. But EA990 was not destroyed by this speed and continued to fly more than two minutes. And I guess we should consider never exceed speed - 0.91M for 767, but not maximum operating speed, which is lesser.

And Russian Tu-154 in the 1995 year crash http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19951207-0 reached more than 540 knots at 2700 feet altitude http://www.airdisaster.ru/reports.php?id=13 (in Russian), despite that never exceed speed for this plane is 351 knots below 23,000 feet. Plane destroyed by impact into mountain, but not by air forces.

So it seems that aircrafts have some safety factor, and probably 767 can really reach 510 knots w/o beeing disintegrated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 17 2011, 01:24 AM
Post #18



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (VirPil @ Sep 17 2011, 01:19 AM) *
Hi!

First of all, guys, you do a great job, but I have some remark to your calculations.

Well, 425 knots at sea level has equivalent dynamic pressure for 0.99M of EA990 at 22,000 feet, it's right. But EA990 was not destroyed by this speed and continued to fly more than two minutes.


Define "fly"?

The FDR stopped recording several seconds after recording .99 Mach. According to the NTSB, the FDR did not record any speed higher than .99 mach for EA990. This implies in flight structural failure. Sure, the aircraft kept "flying".... right into the ground with two distinct debris fields, as reported by the NTSB. EA990 came apart in flight. It's just that simple.


QUOTE
And Russian Tu-154 in the 1995 year crash http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19951207-0 reached more than 540 knots at 2700 feet altitude http://www.airdisaster.ru/reports.php?id=13 (in Russian), despite that never exceed speed for this plane is 351 knots below 23,000 feet. Plane destroyed by impact into mountain, but not by air forces.


From one of your links.

The aircraft was flying at 9600m when it suddenly banked right and entered a steep spiral dive.


9600m is nearly 31,500 feet.

Your other link is in Russian, However, please show us where it states 540 knots at 2700 ft altitude with an aircraft rated at 351 Vmo.

This may help.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=a...s.php%3Fid%3D13

Be sure to also quote the Vd/Md of the Tu-154 and the Russian regulations for designating Vd/Md.

QUOTE
So it seems that aircrafts have some safety factor, and probably 767 can really reach 510 knots w/o beeing disintegrated.


The 767 is not Russian, nor designed by Russians. nor regulated by Russians during initial certification.

Secondly, the Tu-154 is a virtual remake of the Boeing 727. Far from being a bulky 767. You are talking apples and oranges.

But hey, welcome to the forum! I look forward to your replies and participation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VirPil
post Sep 17 2011, 05:15 AM
Post #19





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo) *
But hey, welcome to the forum!

Thanks, Rob!
QUOTE (rob balsamo) *
I look forward to your replies and participation.

Here is it:
QUOTE (rob balsamo) *
Define "fly"?
The FDR stopped recording several seconds after recording .99 Mach.

Well, indeed according to NTSB report http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2002/AAB0201.pdf
"At 0150:23, the airspeed reached its peak calculated value of 0.99 Mach ... the FDR recorded the last data for the accident flight at 0150:36.64, the pitch angle had increased to about 8║ nose down, and the airplane was experiencing about 2.4 Gs." FDR worked 23 sec. after reaching 0.99M, but report states "The primary radar returns indicated that the airplane then began to climb, reaching about 25,000 feet msl about 0151:15" I think we can call such climb for 3000 feet "fly", for sure in the case that radar data is reliable.
QUOTE (rob balsamo) *
Your other link is in Russian, However, please show us where it states 540 knots at 2700 ft altitude with an aircraft rated at 351 Vmo.

OK, here is: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...s.php%3Fid%3D13 But Google translation is quite obscure, see my remarks.

"Full-scale layout of the wing, its mechanization and control Sun As a result of the study (see "The findings of the expert study design elements destroyed the Tu-154 85 164 number") found that the destruction of a glider aircraft in flight was the mechanization of the wing and stabilizer were in the flight position. Chassis removed" - right translation is "there was not airframe destruction in the flight, high-lift devices stabilizer and were in flight position, gear up".

"In 17chas.08min. 21 sec. plane collided with a mountain slope in an inverted position with the angle of inclination of the trajectory on a dive at about 70 ░ at the speed of the device [IAS] more than 1,000 km / h and a vertical descent rate of about 300 m / sec."

"Scene of the accident is located at a distance of 274 km with an azimuth .- 98 ░ from the airport of Khabarovsk on the CTA elevation 820 m above sea level. "
QUOTE (rob balsamo) *
Be sure to also quote the Vd/Md of the Tu-154

I have russian flight manual for Tu-154 from http://www.protu-154.net/index_e.html , it's included in installer. To be precise it says "Calculated maximum speed Vmax on levels up 7000 m 650 km/h, 7000-10300 625 km/h, levels >= 10300 m. 0.95M". I can send you PDF itself, if you like.
QUOTE (rob balsamo) *
and the Russian regulations for designating Vd/Md.

Don't now exactly. At least 650 km/h is maximum speed mentioned Tu-154 manual.

Also we should remember, that 0.99M it's not just certain speed that provides some dynamic pressure, that that you can extrapolate to 425 kn. at sea level, but is almost sound speed, that involves completely different gas dynamic and shock waves as you yourself wrote "other factors come into play within the transonic ranges"

I only want to say, that plane is capable to override Vd in solid degree. I don't insist by any means that United 175 really flew 510 knots, I just brought some examples and clarifications to similar cases.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 17 2011, 05:59 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (VirPil @ Sep 17 2011, 06:15 AM) *
I think we can call such climb for 3000 feet "fly", for sure in the case that radar data is reliable.


Seven primary radar returns from the airplane were recorded during the second
dive; the altitude estimates from these returns are subject to potentially large errors, which
introduces significant uncertainty into the performance calculations during the second
dive.


The same type of radar data also shows "AA77" climbing through 50,000 feet at some points. Primary radar data is far from being "reliable"




QUOTE (VirPil @ Sep 17 2011, 06:15 AM) *
Don't now exactly. At least 650 km/h is maximum speed mentioned Tu-154 manual.


Max speed is different from Vd.

For example, Max operating speed of the 767 is 360 knots. Vd is 420.

You need to get the Vd/Md for the aircraft you cite and the regulation as defined by Russian agencies. Until then, your argument is moot.

(i can already tell your argument is moot anyway as the Tu-154 is nothing like a 767)

QUOTE
Also we should remember, that 0.99M it's not just certain speed that provides some dynamic pressure, that that you can extrapolate to 425 kn. at sea level, but is almost sound speed, that involves completely different gas dynamic and shock waves as you yourself wrote "other factors come into play within the transonic ranges"


The above diagram is good from sea level, up to almost 18,000 feet. Above that, the Vg diagram actually moves to the left. In other words, structural failure speeds are less in terms of Indicated at higher altitudes. Real pilots can see this as they climb. The Vmo indicator (Barber pole) actually moves to a lower airspeed once you climb above the crossover altitude. The reason for this is the aircraft is no longer limited by raw dynamic pressure, rather it is now becoming limited by the effects of Mach (both drag related, which is why EAS is calculated using Mach number and good to above Mach 2). A good explanation of this is shown here.

http://www.biggles-software.com/software/7..._40_vmo_mmo.htm


Read more here - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793146
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: 12th December 2017 - 04:49 PM