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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Duhbunkers Unable To Plot Vg Diagram With Data, VG Diagram by P4T is Fake? - split from pinned debate topic

rob balsamo
post Feb 14 2012, 06:26 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,598
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



[mod note - this topic split from here.... http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10803789]


lol... yeah.. and now I see Proudbird/weedwhacker doesn't know how to plot his own V-G diagram with a Type Certificate Data Sheet. The idiot also thinks Vmo and Vne are the same. What a moron. Too funny.

Psssst... Proudbird/weedwhacker, Listen up.. Vmo is more akin to Vno, Vne is equivalent to Vd.

People think this guy is a pilot? Really?

No wonder he never puts his name to his claims.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
911analyzer
post Feb 14 2012, 09:04 PM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 37
Joined: 3-March 08
Member No.: 2,828



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 14 2012, 06:26 PM) *
lol... yeah.. and now I see Proudbird/weedwhacker doesn't know how to plot his own V-G diagram with a Type Certificate Data Sheet. The idiot also thinks Vmo and Vne are the same. What a moron. Too funny.

Psssst... Proudbird/weedwhacker, Listen up.. Vmo is more akin to Vno, Vne is equivalent to Vd.

People think this guy is a pilot? Really?

No wonder he never puts his name to his claims.


Just for the record, could you please define all these terms clearly, or perhaps point to a post here that does?

Vmo=
Vno=
Vne=
Vd=

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 14 2012, 11:16 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,598
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (911analyzer @ Feb 14 2012, 08:04 PM) *
Just for the record, could you please define all these terms clearly, or perhaps point to a post here that does?

Vmo=
Vno=
Vne=
Vd=

Thanks.


VMO Maximum operating limit speed
VNO Maximum structural cruising speed or maximum speed for normal operations.

VD Design diving speed
VNE Never exceed speed

Both Vd and Vne are used as the end of the flight envelope and the start of the structural failure zone.

Example -


Example -


Example -


Example -


More here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Regulatory_V-speeds

And a video demonstrating how to plot your own VG when the V-speeds and G load limits are known.



To give you an idea of the speeds reported on 9/11 and where they fit into the Flight Envelope as defined by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, I put this together awhile ago to put into perspective Legge's claims (and the claims of those who make excuse for the govt story) of where an aircraft can allegedly operate while maintaining control, according to govt loyalists and shills.


(red highlights mine, all else is from the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics)

That's not just "pushing the envelope", that is considered extreme absurdity in aviation.

More references here...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793146

and here...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed_part2.html

Hope this helps...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 15 2012, 10:37 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,521
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE


I'll say it again. Legge was looking for "pilots" to endorse his nonsense. Why don't weedwhacker/proudbird and "reheat" step up to the plate?

In fact, every time these bs merchants (including those "twoofer bashers" at PPrune forums) flap their gums on this subject, that question should be asked every time.

"Clowns falling out of a VW Beetle"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 15 2012, 12:42 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,598
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 15 2012, 09:37 AM) *
I'll say it again. Legge was looking for "pilots" to endorse his nonsense. Why don't weedwhacker/proudbird and "reheat" step up to the plate?

In fact, every time these bs merchants (including those "twoofer bashers" at PPrune forums) flap their gums on this subject, that question should be asked every time.



They don't endorse his garbage because they know it is garbage. They won't even place their own names to their own claims. They claim to be afraid some troofer might stalk them, yet anyone can knock on my door if they look me up in the faa database.... and they call us paranoid...where is that exploding irony meter when you need it... lol

They dont place their name on anything because they know the shit they spout is pure bunk. As it is, Weedwhacker has discredited his "weedwhacker" ID so badly he had to make a new one... Proudbird.

Although, it appears Proudbird/weedwhacker may have been called into his supervisors office for a spanking and scheduled for remedial training after claiming Vmo is the same as Vne. lol.. too funny. I feel another UserID coming down the pike for Proudbird/weedy.... either that, or they should fire his ass for all his screw-up's, and get some new blood in there. He can't even keep up with layman anymore.

Now the cheerleaders are coming out of the woodwork with their strawmans... no doubt to run interference due to Proudbird/weedwhacker screwing the pooch.. just like clockwork when they are pinned into a corner...

"[Balsamo] claimed that as soon as a plane passed the red zone on his diagram then it would instantly break apart." - Pentagon Blogger Cheerleader


I never made such a claim, and this is why they never source anything they claim I have said.

Matter of fact, I said quite the opposite...

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 17 2011, 02:53 PM) *
I would like to make it clear that one knot over Vd does not guarantee structural failure. All it means is that you are now a test pilot flying in what is defined as the Structural Failure zone.


Source - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801279

What is absurd is claiming an aircraft can fly 150 knots into the "red zone" and maintain control, stability and structural integrity as claimed by those who blindly support the govt story and/or Pentagon Bloggers. They have yet to find precedent, data, and/or one verified pilot to support such an absurd notion. In fact data, precedent and numerous verified pilots oppose such an absurd notion.


QUOTE


Bingo... maybe one day they will realize that the more they pile on, the more they validate our work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 17 2012, 03:28 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,598
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Took a stroll over to the Asylum today (ATS is the Asylum, while JREF is the Cesspool for those wondering), they're really piling it on for something in which they consider "nuts". Hmmm... wonder why that is.... lol

Anyway, as expected, it's the blind leading the blind. Proudbird/Weedy is still trying to flex his aeronautical knowledge, but as usual, falling flat on his face as he did when he posted videos of aircraft flying "fast" within their flight envelope as a comparison to aircraft flying Vmo+150 (hilarious) and then claiming Vne is the same as Vmo. The list of comedy gold spouted by Proudbird/Weedy continues... but it's good to see they now realize the V-G diagram is accurate, as clearly they aren't able to come up with one of their own.

I'll skip most of the rhetoric and poor attempts at character assassination as that is really all they have left.... but allow me to respond to his post which he thinks will get deleted if posted here.... this won't take long...

Dutch roll -

They are correct that Dutch Roll is not a problem within the flight envelope. This is yet another reason manufacturers set a Vmo/Mmo.

What happens as aircraft speed increases? It's in his own source...

The amount of deflection of the rudder panel by the yaw damper is reduced at high speed to avoid potential over-stressing of the airframe.


In other words, the deflection of the rudder panel(s) is increasingly limited the faster you go so you don't rip the thing off the airframe. Again, just another one of the many reasons manufacturers set a Vmo. Exceeding Vmo by such a wide margin, how exactly is it going to dampen dutch roll with an already limited rudder? Perhaps the rudder panels are no longer limited above Vmo? Then they will have this problem (which happened at Departure speeds).

This is why Dan Govatos, an FAA Check Airman, along with his line pilots, were experiencing Dutch Roll tendencies in the simulator at High speeds, but were able to hit the buildings at near landing speeds. The high speeds were too fast with a limited rudder that was no longer effective in reducing dutch roll.

Once again, Proudbird/Weedy screws the pooch. The very reason he will NEVER put his name to his claims.

Mach Tuck -

Again, ProudBird/Weedwhacker is attempting to argue conditions of an aircraft flying within their flight envelope as compared to an aircraft reportedly operating way outside it's limitations.

From his own source -

As you probably know, the reason an aircraft would need a mach speed trim device is because the wing center of pressure (Cp) moves aft at transonic speeds, usually starting at about Mach 0.6 or 0.7. As the Cp moves aft, the moment arm between it and the elevator decreases making the elevator less effective in providing pitch control. The difference in location between the Cp and the center of gravity (located in front of the Cp) causes the aircraft nose to pitch down, so more elevator trim is required to keep the aircraft level.



We won't get too technical here as it will only confuse people like Proudbird/Weedy, but 0.7 Mach at say 22,000 feet, is the equivalent of 301 knots at Sea Level. Well within the envelope and the range for Mach speed trim.

510 knots at Sea Level (the speed reported for the South Tower Airplane) is the equivalent of Mach 1.19 at 22,000 feet.

People can calculate it themselves here.

http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx...ivalentAirspeed

Put 22,000 into pressure altitude

Put -29 into the C window (22,000 feet based on standard adiabatic rate)

Put 510 in Equivalent Airspeed window.

Click Eval on True Airspeed window

Read Mach number on shaded windows below...


Again, I guess ProudBird/Weedy should inform Boeing to change their 767-200 model number to the Boeing 767-200SST since apparently it can operate in conditions equivalent to Mach 1.19, according to people like Proudbird/Weedwhacker.

I also noticed Proudbird/Weedwhacker is claiming he came here for debate. Well, we do not have a "Proudbird" registered here, but we do have a "weedwhacker" who registered here, but the weedwhacker from ATS claims that wasn't him (but it really was).

Proudbird/Weedy caught in more lies. What a tangled web he weaves...

You're getting slow old man. They need to get new blood in there to replace you.

Anytime you wish to come on over and have a real debate, feel free to do so Proudbird/Weedy. Then I'll teach you how transonic ranges have equivalent airspeed's at sea level and why the IAS Vmo pointer slides to lower airspeed's during climb. It must feel pretty lonely being stuck in such a small clown car of a thread over there at ATS, especially with a belligerent drunk bigot like Retreat, while we get 5000-15,000 views per day of our work, and that's just on our website (doesn't include things like videos on youtube, facebook pages... etc).

Now with that said, I bet that if this post is posted at ATS, it WILL get deleted as "Off-topic". Funny how they accuse us of deleting posts, when ATS is the mecca of deleted posts.

Have fun!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 17 2012, 10:56 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,521
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Thanks for laying that out for the layman Rob.

thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 17 2012, 11:52 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,598
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 17 2012, 09:56 PM) *
Thanks for laying that out for the layman Rob.

thumbsup.gif


Anytime. Feel free to ask any question you may have or even post directly from those who refuse to confront us directly. I (or others here) will address it when we have the time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: 18th April 2014 - 02:37 PM