IPB




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 )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Aviation Auto Pilots

SanderO
post Feb 2 2011, 11:40 AM
Post #21





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Is this separate from the mechanical or "fly by wire" control mechanisms. I was hoping for not a navigation lesson, but a "mechanical" one how the information is turned into coruse/heading and so forth. Amazed your answer shed no light on this.

What do these things look like? where are they installed? How many separate components or units are involved? Are there back ups and so forth. Does it move the "yoke" forgive me for my lack of understand of a flight control... or does is move something at the control surfaces like rams or actuators?

I am referring to the big jets.

For example, in sailboats the autopilots ONLY control the rubber angle... nothing to do with sail trim and the do not control the throttle.

How are APs in big jets different since I am sure they are much more complex.

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 2 2011, 03:25 PM
Post #22





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,944
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



"Fly by wire" is a fairly new process for control of the flight control surfaces.

Prior to that it was straight mechanical, with either pulleys & cables or push rods and bellcranks. Larger aircraft were hydraulically powered.

The flight control surfaces are the surfaces that move--ailerons and flaps on the wings, rudder on the vertical tail, elevators on the horizontal tail. They are controlled by the pilot through the control stick or wheel. If an AP is installed, it controls those surfaces by way of servos, when commanded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Feb 3 2011, 01:15 AM
Post #23





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 2 2011, 10:48 AM) *
SanderO

The autopilot controls the airplane (flight control surfaces) and the nav system (including GPS if installed) controls the autopilot through an interface.



Yep. The A/P controls servo's that move the control surfaces.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 4 2011, 09:16 PM
Post #24





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,944
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Rubber angle?

I thought rubber was something about a card game, can't remember which one. Canasta or bridge?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Feb 5 2011, 02:43 AM
Post #25





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



I believe the rubber angle is connected to the muffler bearing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 5 2011, 08:26 AM
Post #26





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



It's the angle where the rubber meets the road...

Funny gaffe ...

Are the servos which drive the control surfaces the same ones or independent from the pilot's steering controls.

If they are separate then there are two sets of servos and cables/wires and so forth. Can you clarify this.... Where does... it does... the AP system interface with the manual controls?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 5 2011, 11:02 AM
Post #27





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,944
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



We're getting a bit detailed here. I'm just a pilot, not a mechanic, and can only speak regarding smaller airplanes.

It's my understanding that servos are part of the AP system, and they are directly connected to the flight control surfaces.

For example, smaller airplanes manufactured without an AP do not have such servos. They are added at the time an AP is installed. Though rare today, some airplanes never have one installed.

Surely there are many different designs involved, with many different details.

Your being an engineer SanderO might make you more into intricate details than into the proverbial Big Picture.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 5 2011, 12:27 PM
Post #28





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Amazed,

I am an architect and a sailor who has a sailboat and installed a "below decks" AP. I am not a pilot and was simply curious about the complexity and the vulnerability of these systems for use in programmed flight "paths" or "tracks" (don't know the aviation term or remote controlled ones.

I raise this issue because remote control and or "homing in" to a beacon has been mentioned to explain the plane behavior on 911.

I am trying to comprehend the technology involved and how reliable and accurate it would have been in 2001.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Feb 5 2011, 05:02 PM
Post #29





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



QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 5 2011, 12:27 PM) *
Amazed,

I am an architect and a sailor who has a sailboat and installed a "below decks" AP. I am not a pilot and was simply curious about the complexity and the vulnerability of these systems for use in programmed flight "paths" or "tracks" (don't know the aviation term or remote controlled ones.

I raise this issue because remote control and or "homing in" to a beacon has been mentioned to explain the plane behavior on 911.

I am trying to comprehend the technology involved and how reliable and accurate it would have been in 2001.


Typically on aircraft, the A/P servos are connected to the main cables to the flight controls.
When the A/P is OFF, the servo's "free-wheel" allowing the pilot to move
the controls freely. When the A/P is ON, a clutch engages on the A/P servo
and takes control of the cable and receives commands from the FCC. The pilot
can overpower the Servo's with minimal force, which disconnects the A/P.
There are different configurations but all do the same thing basically.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 6 2011, 11:47 AM
Post #30





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,944
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



SanderO

I think we've already mentioned it here, but suffice to say that since at least the 80's and probably before, autopilot and navigation system interfaces reached the point where a high end AP can fly an airplane to a landing. Today they have autothrottles and autobraking.

Flying a remotely controlled airliner into a building such as the WTC tower would be child's play for high quality systems.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 6 2011, 12:48 PM
Post #31





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I am not doubting that it can be done. I am trying to understand how might have been done. APs are a bit of a black box and so I would like to throw more light on it. Thank you all for your contribution to my understanding.

Can an AP course be programed from outside the cockpit?

How?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 6 2011, 03:44 PM
Post #32





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,944
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Probably, but I don't know. And it doesn't matter because in this scenario it would have been programmed from inside the cockpit, before the aircraft took off. Just a series of waypoints, like any other flight plan.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 6 2011, 04:04 PM
Post #33





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Am I understanding you correctly in that the plane was not really hijacked...

At sometime someone programmed the AP... and whomever was piloting or not the AP took over and simply drove the plane into the targets?

I am not disputing you.. I just want to understand how this might have been done.

Was there or wasn't there a commercial pilot on board the planes which hit the towers. Did the scheduled flights hot the towers or were they remote controlled substitute planes?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 6 2011, 04:18 PM
Post #34





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,944
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



This is only my speculation.

Just as they taxi Predator and other drones, they can and must taxi all of them.

My theory is that they launched the Boeings at a specified time, climbed to altitude, perhaps even did some holding or vectoring to use up time, hit a start point and navigated to the end point. Possibly at the end point was some sort of homing device signal to be acquired by the aircraft for more precision?

My theory is that the various "flights", 11, 175, 93 & 77 never boarded pax and never existed except on paper. Or if they did actually board, were landed elsewhere by prior plan and arrangement, such as Cleveland.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 7 2011, 09:25 PM
Post #35





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I don't want to wander off topic... of there were no pax and no flights were the people who claimed to have lost loved ones making this up? Surely you can issue phony manifest and the made up people "belong to no one". Weren't some of these people real who were supposed to be on those flights... Betty Ong etc...

This seems that they were boarded and disappeared... maybe never took off... gassed in the plane and dumped in the sea... if they were real people they had to be disposed of one way or another.

Why couldn't the actual flights have been altered planes where the cpt took off and the entire plane was gassed and then the plane remotely flown into the target?

Why couldn't the actual flights have even been hijacked by these dupes who were also gassed and so forth?

Why substitute planes?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 7 2011, 09:59 PM
Post #36





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,944
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I am of the opinion that all the "passengers" were cooperating individuals. They were paid well and relocated with new identities and new bank accounts.

When I first started studying this 911 thing I was recovering from an accident and spent alot of time on the computer. Because Bush & Co refused to investigate the events of the day, hundreds and perhaps thousands of curious and computer-savvy folks began to investigate what they could.

There was one fellow who had chosen to investigate and interview all surviving family members. He divided surviving family members into 2 broad groups. Those whose relative was killed in the collapse of the buildings, and those whose relative was one of the passengers.

Oddly, to a person, he realized that those whose loved one died in the building were curious, talkative and wanting to help in any investigation, while those whose loved one was a passenger were withdrawn, would not answer or return phone calls, and generally not cooperative in any investigation.

IMO, there is a reason for that, and it is that they did not want to rock the boat because they were actually protecting some dark secret.

Small irony is that 1 of the "flight attendants" was from my home town, and fairly well known. Had done a tour in the Army, and was some sort of police officer too. Local girl made good. Several years ago her widower husband moved away from town. Maybe just coincidence, but maybe not.

I hope we don't get busted for being off topic laughing1.gif but I think if somebody ever writes a book about those passengers it will be very good reading.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IslandPilot
post Feb 8 2011, 04:01 PM
Post #37





Group: Core Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 16-June 10
From: Western Lake Erie, Ohio, Michigan, Canada
Member No.: 5,099



QUOTE (aerohead @ Jan 29 2011, 04:30 PM) *
Im sure most of you have seen this but im gonna post it anyway.
<snipped out NASA remote control test>

And i cant help but wonder if this next "test" wasnt a dry run to see how
much evidence would be left after a 500 mph crash into a concrete/steel building.
Pretty obvious if you ask me. F-4's have long been a favorite of the old school gang.
And there in lies the "why" for the excessive speeds that day, imo.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/--_RGM4Abv8" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

<snipped out "Northwoods" reference>

Aerohead;
You consistently have very good posts on this site. Your knowledge and info are beyond "common knowledge" when it comes to AIRPLANES;... how they're built and maintained; their capabilities; and what they "can", and "cannot" do.

Basically, I "like" your stuff.
But, I "don't like" that F4 video...

It is "interesting", because it seems to show a "dustification" of both the concrete wall and the F4. You "offer" this video to better inform us what "might" have happened when TWO "alledged" aircraft struck the twin towers;... Why they "needed" to be going so fast.... and Why they seemed to "disappear" into the side of the buildings.

At first, the F4 video, is compelling. It causes me to realize there is a "force of impact"... or a "velocity of impact" that seemingly "vaporizes" everything at the "point of impact"; and it doesn't matter if it's aluminum, steel, or concrete.... real stuff seems to "disappear" into dust, or "vaporize".

This didn't seem "right" at first; but I realized it may be "true"... under certain conditions. If an A10 Warthog fires its cannon @umpteen thousand DU rounds/minute at a similar target... the "target" explodes into a dust cloud and the "bullets" disappear; just like that F4.

I also understand if a meteorite crashes into the earth, it is equivalent to a Nuclear blast... which would release tons of dust into the atmosphere, similar to a volcano.

And, if it IS posible for a "critical Velocity of impact" to cause such a "vaporizing dustifacation"... it MAY be POSSIBLE to achieve a similar result from very high "COMPRESSIVE FORCES" in the WTC buildings, AFTER the collapse is initiated in some other manner,... and a large upper part of the building has started "falling" toward the ground.

I don't want to "admit" that such "dustification/vaporization" due to high speeds, or loads, occurred at the WTC on 911, but it MAY HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE!

HOWEVER:
The "DUSTIFICATION" (if you will?) of everything at the WTC, doesn't bear any similarity to your F4 video, when the aircraft "impacts" the building. The "DUSTIFICATION" at the WTC doesn't occurr until the towers start collapsing, over an hour later.

Then, it is amazing how similar the "DUSTIFICATION" process seems to be between the F4 and the WTC.

ALSO:
The f4 Test doesn't really "show" or "prove" anything "valid" enough scientifically, to compare it to the 911WTC attacks:
The F4 and a B-757 or B-767 are not very "similar".
varoom.gif pilot.gif
The F4 has a wing leading edge that is damn near "bullet proof". A bird can put a nasty dent in just about any Airliner's wing.
An airliner's nose is built like an aluminum "beer can";
an F4's nose is very much stronger, and "more pointy".
What was in the F4's nose for that test? Was it packed with Depleated Uranium?
How much FUEL was in the F4 for the "test"? It looks like "NONE",... I didn't see any "flash" or fire.
Was the F4 powered by its own engine... or was it "rocket" powered?

AND LAST:
What was the PURPOSE of the F4 test, in the first place?
The video made some statement about the "adequacy" of "CONCRETE CONTAINMENT VESSELS" at our Nuclear Power Plants, to withstand such an attack.
And I say that's BULLSHIT! bullshit.gif
If I'm a Muslim/Israeli Terrorist, and if I watch that video...
I will have to remind my "contacts" at the DOD/CIA/Blackwater/? to Please send (2) two specially equiped F4s for "each" Nuke Plant attack, I may be planning.
The video documents how EFFECTIVE ONE F4 can be, to REMOVE the CONCRETE CONTAINMENT VESSEL.... so that "another" F4 about 30seconds later; can then destroy the "NUCLEAR REACTOR".

Looks like a pretty DUMB TEST to me. But, what else can you expect from MILITARY INTELLIGENCE? dunno.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 9 2011, 10:45 AM
Post #38





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,944
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



IP

I live about 5 miles from the 2 St. Lucie reactors owned by FP&L. They were built in the 70's and their construction was a huge boon to the local economy.

I think it is true that the purpose of that F-4 test was to determine how the containment structure might withstand an attack by some random aircraft. That is, people were talking about that test for many years. FWIW

Then it turns out, according to several friends who worked there for years, that if one wanted to attack 1 of those plants, 1 WOULD NOT attack the containment building. Can't remember exactly where, but apparently there are better places to strike, if that is one's goal.

There is still much concern about those plants, and it's justified IMO. But the containment building will absorb the strike of a Phantom. FWIW
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Feb 10 2011, 07:20 PM
Post #39





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



QUOTE (IslandPilot @ Feb 8 2011, 04:01 PM) *
Aerohead;
You consistently have very good posts on this site. Your knowledge and info are beyond "common knowledge" when it comes to AIRPLANES;... how they're built and maintained; their capabilities; and what they "can", and "cannot" do.
Thanks IP, i like what ive read from you also




Basically, I "like" your stuff.
But, I "don't like" that F4 video...
I dont either, its a test that (to me) may tell a tale. The intent of the test



It is "interesting", because it seems to show a "dustification" of both the concrete wall and the F4. You "offer" this video to better inform us what "might" have happened when TWO "alledged" aircraft struck the twin towers;... Why they "needed" to be going so fast.... and Why they seemed to "disappear" into the side of the buildings.

At first, the F4 video, is compelling. It causes me to realize there is a "force of impact"... or a "velocity of impact" that seemingly "vaporizes" everything at the "point of impact"; and it doesn't matter if it's aluminum, steel, or concrete.... real stuff seems to "disappear" into dust, or "vaporize". well a real f-4 has alot of aluminim, titanium, engines and landing gear of course, but i dont
know if THIS one did. The exhaust doesnt look "right" for the engines to me. And yes the momentum would be tremendous
as seen at the WTC, as the plane exploded through the other sides of the buildings.




This didn't seem "right" at first; but I realized it may be "true"... under certain conditions. If an A10 Warthog fires its cannon @umpteen thousand DU rounds/minute at a similar target... the "target" explodes into a dust cloud and the "bullets" disappear; just like that F4.

I also understand if a meteorite crashes into the earth, it is equivalent to a Nuclear blast... which would release tons of dust into the atmosphere, similar to a volcano.

And, if it IS posible for a "critical Velocity of impact" to cause such a "vaporizing dustifacation"... it MAY be POSSIBLE to achieve a similar result from very high "COMPRESSIVE FORCES" in the WTC buildings, AFTER the collapse is initiated in some other manner,... and a large upper part of the building has started "falling" toward the ground. My issue with the WTC is that gravity is no doubt a force and can be
used to help a collapse, but it cannot over come more than its force. I do not believe gravity was enough to achieve the massive
crushing, pyroclastic flow of material we saw. It was enormous and not logical to me.




I don't want to "admit" that such "dustification/vaporization" due to high speeds, or loads, occurred at the WTC on 911, but it MAY HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE! Cant say i agree with you here, due to eyewitness testimony, and evidence in the debis

HOWEVER:
The "DUSTIFICATION" (if you will?) of everything at the WTC, doesn't bear any similarity to your F4 video, when the aircraft "impacts" the building. The "DUSTIFICATION" at the WTC doesn't occurr until the towers start collapsing, over an hour later.

Then, it is amazing how similar the "DUSTIFICATION" process seems to be between the F4 and the WTC.

ALSO:
The f4 Test doesn't really "show" or "prove" anything "valid" enough scientifically, to compare it to the 911WTC attacks:
What it proves to me is that someone was testing aircraft to see what a 500 mph impact would do.
The F4 and a B-757 or B-767 are not very "similar". Well, they are both stout, rigid built planes. The
materials are similar, F-4 would be tougher no doubt

varoom.gif pilot.gif
The F4 has a wing leading edge that is damn near "bullet proof". A bird can put a nasty dent in just about any Airliner's wing.
An airliner's nose is built like an aluminum "beer can"; Both noses are not rigid, both (if i remember correctly) are
composite, they arent made for impact, only aerodynamics and to house the radar dishes

an F4's nose is very much stronger, and "more pointy". More pointy yes, stronger- dont think so. If so not
by much

What was in the F4's nose for that test? Was it packed with Depleated Uranium?
Thats my question too, Why ? And dont forget that some claim the pentagon was
reinforced in the very section that was hit. Was this why ? Dunno


How much FUEL was in the F4 for the "test"? It looks like "NONE",... I didn't see any "flash" or fire.
Was the F4 powered by its own engine... or was it "rocket" powered?
Rocket powered, cant see if the engines were installed but i doubt it. And i dont think
there was fuel on board either, no fireball.


AND LAST:
What was the PURPOSE of the F4 test, in the first place? Yes, what was the purpose
The video made some statement about the "adequacy" of "CONCRETE CONTAINMENT VESSELS" at our Nuclear Power Plants, to withstand such an attack.
And I say that's BULLSHIT! bullshit.gif
If I'm a Muslim/Israeli Terrorist, and if I watch that video...
I will have to remind my "contacts" at the DOD/CIA/Blackwater/? to Please send (2) two specially equiped F4s for "each" Nuke Plant attack, I may be planning.
The video documents how EFFECTIVE ONE F4 can be, to REMOVE the CONCRETE CONTAINMENT VESSEL.... so that "another" F4 about 30seconds later; can then destroy the "NUCLEAR REACTOR".

Looks like a pretty DUMB TEST to me. But, what else can you expect from MILITARY INTELLIGENCE? dunno.gif

Ya i agree, but to me it could be a test to see waht would be left if a beefed up 757/767 drone was smashed
at 500 mph into a building. What would be left? "Would there be enough left to identify it and put
our asses in the gallows" ? Dunno But i find it interesting that this test was done at all. But i do
know that the old school guys (myself included even tho im not that old) love te F-4 and there were
a massive amount of them made and sitting in the bone-yard. One with my name on the canopy.


This post has been edited by aerohead: Feb 10 2011, 07:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 10 2011, 10:30 PM
Post #40





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The crashing of a plane into a structure is straying from the topic. But an analysis of a collision of two "composites" requires that their individual materials properties, and the energy of the collision be considered. Some people have said it's impossible for a 757 to penetrate the twin towers in a collision and that just rubbish if you analyze the impact energy and its distribution and the compressive strength of 1/4" thick steel.

As far as pyroclastic flow...there was no such thing at the twin towers. There was a violent turbulent grinding flow of materials which ground themselves up driven by a growing mass to over 300,000 tons. This turned all the crushable material such as wallboard and no stone concrete into dust and sand grain size particles. The dust cloud at the bottom spread radially away from the collapse... at perhaps 30mph and billowed up. Collapses with /of concrete structures will produce similar clouds. In this case it has enormous energy, orders of magnitude larger than any similar collapse. It was in a sense, a first and all three towers displayed the same characteristics as they were in the same "size/mass class" for such collapses.

Drop a container of concrete rubble, dust, sand from say 10 stories and observe the motion of the material and the dust on impact. This test will not produce the grinding as the WTC collapse did.. but it will show a similar dispersal cloud... obviously scaled way down.

Some materials tests CANNOT be scaled down as some forces and factors cannot be scaled down such a gravity and time. And even dimensional properties of materials related to strength cannot be scaled for testing. Performance tests have to be full scale or mathematically modeled.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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: 19th December 2014 - 02:18 AM