9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

reply to post by TiffanyInLA



if you read it and select the relevant fact that not all aircraft crashed, in these days they didn't know about the effect of tuck under and it wasn't discovered until an investigation completed by the NACA, but if you look at the ME 262, this aircraft could complete supersonic flight even though not designed for it nor had the required air foils to assist at flight at this speed

Wee Mad

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Vmo is not the same as Vne.

VMO is a term that applies to Transport Category airplanes.

VNE is more for the General Aviation (IE, smaller) airplanes.

I agree, but they are not the same speed.

If you want to compare apples to apples, Vne is similar to Vd.

But then again, you still don't understand the basics of a Flight Envelope, so it's pointless to try and make you understand.

Click this image weedwhacker, learn something.

Originally posted by weemadmental
but if you look at the ME 262, this aircraft could complete supersonic flight even though not designed for it nor had the required air foils to assist at flight at this speed

Wee Mad

Seems you missed my post on the bottom of the last page and the wiki entry for the Me-262.

Here it is again.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLal
By the way, you really should read your "Spitfire" wiki link before you try to use it as a source -

There are, however, several claims that the sound barrier was broken during World War II. Hans Guido Mutke claimed to have broken the sound barrier on April 9, 1945 in a Messerschmitt Me 262.

snip

Similar claims for the Spitfire and other propeller aircraft are more suspect. It is now known that traditional airspeed gauges using a pitot tube give inaccurately high readings in the transonic regime, apparently due to shock waves interacting with the tube or the static source. This led to problems then known as "Mach jump".[10]

[edit on 30-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA



super sonic speeds were recorded by pilots through buffeting at high speeds, trans sonic effect, sonic booms, etc, it doesn't show this on a spitfires / ME 262 / Meteor etc, speed dial / clock / gauge / instrument as it doesn't show Mach 1 as they weren't factored speeds at that time, think of the ias on the 172 etc this is roughly what they had.

P.s. stop googling the terms in a hurry, you want to purchase some decent bed time reading material, try the Boeing manuals or aircraft design text books such as Aircraft design by ajoy kumare jundum you will find it under the Cambridge reading materials sections or from amazon, this shows the correct math that you should be using and provides all the terms on how they are used in all types of aircraft

Wee Mad

[edit on 30/8/2010 by weemadmental]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Oh, I FULLY know what the envelope represents.....

But then again, you still don't understand the basics of a Flight Envelope, so it's pointless to try and make you understand.

It is YOU who keep using it out of context, and incorrectly.

THINK FAST!!!

How many Gs does the airplane experience in unaccelerated steady-state flight conditions???

NOW....when it experiences THOSE G forces, explain just how your faked **, and brightly-colored Vg envelope applies?

(** faked, again....oh, I SO MUCH want to tell you how terrible it is, and WHY it is so terrible!! But, then you'd be tipped off, and we can't have that. You won't learn, that way!)

Oh...and, BTW....the relationships in graphical form, that make up a Vg diagram ARE purely mathematical, of course....hence, that is why they look so similar, even from airplane to airplane.

But, even YOU, should have been aware, by now, of the wide range of OTHER "envelopes" that determine airplane performance....and the WIDE range that exists for Transport Category jets.

Or, maybe you haven't gotten to that module in your "studies", yet??

It's OK...you can jump ahead, if you want....just be sure to complete ALL of your syllabus work, if you want to pass the written.

~~~~~~~

BTW....doubt you've ever flown Transports....but, just tossingit out.

Know what the the "bug" speeds represent, when they are set for Minimum Maneuvering airspeeds, for the various flap settings? And, for flaps up? ("Clean" Min Maneuvering, IOW).

(Hint: It involves the letter "G"...)







[edit on 30 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weemadmental
P.s. stop googling the terms in a hurry,

I didn't use google, I just clicked your source link.

your source says that the Spitfire claims are "suspect", gives the reason, and a source.

The rest of the claims in your source explain why the aircraft crashed. Control reversal, Mach Tuck.. .etc.

You should click it. After all, it was your source.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(** faked, again....

It appears you didn't read this post. Try reading it weedwhacker -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

oh, I SO MUCH want to tell you how terrible it is, and WHY it is so terrible!!

You tried to tell us. you were wrong.

Read -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But, even YOU, should have been aware, by now, of the wide range of OTHER "envelopes" that determine airplane performance....and the WIDE range that exists for Transport Category jets.

Yes, but they all end at Vd.

Read and learn.

Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by weemadmental
P.s. stop googling the terms in a hurry,

I didn't use google, I just clicked your source link.

your source says that the Spitfire claims are "suspect", gives the reason, and a source.

The rest of the claims in your source explain why the aircraft crashed. Control reversal, Mach Tuck.. .etc.

You should click it. After all, it was your source.

Behave yourself, im sorry you used BING,

if you have read through the Janes Manuals, aircraft design manuals, repair manuals etc, i have a set here of janes aircraft and performance from WWI-WWII and through to now, they have documentation of a number of air craft especially Komets producing sonic booms etc so they did reach supersonic speeds, and information from pilots that show that they clearly have reached 0.83-1 mach, more than the 150 knots over their VMO, from both sides of the axis

Wee Mad

Originally posted by weemadmental

Behave yourself, im sorry you used BING,

Nope, not that either.

Read again slowly.

I didn't use google, bing or any other search engine - I just clicked your source link.

Your source doesn't claim what you claim.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Yes, but they all end at Vd.

( as they say VD's just for Christmas, not for life ) these are mathematical models, just cause they reach VD, doesn't mean the aircraft will just not function and fall from the sky, there are a number of fighters that can exceed VD and still remain as one.

if you were a pilot or had any idea about flying other that what you have gleamed from the internet you would understand this

Wee Mad

Originally posted by weemadmental
...just cause they reach VD, doesn't mean the aircraft will just not function and fall from the sky, there are a number of fighters that can exceed VD and still remain as one.

Please quote where I made such a claim?

Hint - read the thread before weedwhacker calls you in, in the middle of a conversation.

You already lost quite a bit of credibility as I externally sourced your wiki link, which does not support your claims.

Wee Mad -

Can you find for us just one aircraft which exceeded it;s Vmo by 150 knots, remained controllable/stable and survived, prior to 9/11 or after?

So far, none here have been able.

Did you know Egypt Air 990, a 767, suffered in flight structural failure at 5 knots above Vd at less G's than calculated for the south tower aircraft based on Radar?

[edit on 30-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by weemadmental

Behave yourself, im sorry you used BING,

Nope, not that either.

Read again slowly.

I didn't use google, bing or any other search engine - I just clicked your source link.

Your source doesn't claim what you claim.

READ WHAT I WROTE on how they know these aircraft met these speeds instead of going off on a tangent and not answering to this information, your are over your depth here.

Wee Mad

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by weemadmental
...just cause they reach VD, doesn't mean the aircraft will just not function and fall from the sky, there are a number of fighters that can exceed VD and still remain as one.

Please quote where I made such a claim?

Hint - read the thread before weedwhacker calls you in, in the middle of a conversation.


You already lost quite a bit of credibility as I externally sourced your wiki link, which does not support your claims.

Wee Mad -

Can you find for us just one aircraft which exceeded it;s Vmo by 150 knots, remained controllable/stable and survived, prior to 9/11 or after?

So far, none here have been able.

Did you know Egypt Air 990, a 767, suffered in flight structural failure at 5 knots above Vd at less G's than calculated for the south tower aircraft based on Radar?

[edit on 30-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

i have not lost creditability you have taken a qoute from the bottom of the whole page that you thinks sorts out your argument, as i have said before they knew they reached these speed due to the conditions that they met not by a speed dial that doesnt reach mach 1

And the aircraft i quotes is a komet, google it, you are good at that, there are references to this aircraft reaching these speeds and surviving, you will find that on the same google page !

and what were the conditions, height above sea level, speed, g load, aircraft weight, load conditions, fuel status, cog and atmospherics when 990 had this structural failure, these are all contributing factors so don't quote crap to support your argument, this all counts towards any problems faced by aircraft.



[edit on 30/8/2010 by weemadmental]

Originally posted by weemadmental
READ WHAT I WROTE on how they know these aircraft met these speeds

your source says otherwise. Have you read it?

Here it is again - I'll bold and underline the parts you missed.

Propeller aircraft were, nevertheless, able to approach the speed of sound in a dive. This led to numerous crashes for a variety of reasons. These included the rapidly increasing forces on the various control surfaces, which led to the aircraft becoming difficult to control to the point where many suffered from powered flight into terrain when the pilot was unable to overcome the force on the control stick. The Mitsubishi Zero was infamous for this[citation needed] problem, and several attempts to fix it only made the problem worse. In the case of the Supermarine Spitfire, the wings suffered from low torsional stiffness, and when ailerons were moved the wing tended to flex such that they counteracted the control input, leading to a condition known as control reversal.

There are, however, several claims that the sound barrier was broken during World War II. Hans Guido Mutke claimed to have broken the sound barrier on April 9, 1945 in a Messerschmitt Me 262.

snip

Similar claims for the Spitfire and other propeller aircraft are more suspect. It is now known that traditional airspeed gauges using a pitot tube give inaccurately high readings in the transonic regime, apparently due to shock waves interacting with the tube or the static source. This led to problems then known as "Mach jump".[10]

All of the above is from YOUR source which you claim such speeds as "possible".

Click it, read it.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by weemadmental
i have not lost creditability you have taken a qoute from the bottom of the whole page that you thinks sorts out your argument, as i have said before they knew they reached these speed due to the conditions that they met not by a speed dial that doesnt reach mach 1

Ohhhh. I see, they knew they exceeded Mach 1, not by instrumentation, but by the seat of their pants?

Really?

Ever heard the term Critical Mach?

It happens well below Mach 1, and causes a "buffet effect"



weedwhacker, you really need to get better guys than this.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


it reads that there were numerous crashes due to various things, not all aircraft that completed this crashed and so it never happened !!

In the case of the Supermarine Spitfire, the wings suffered from low torsional stiffness, and when ailerons were moved the wing tended to flex such that they counteracted the control input, leading to a condition known as control reversal. This was solved in later models with changes to the wing. so the spitfire could do this !!

if you listen to some of us you may learn something

Wee Mad

[edit on 30/8/2010 by weemadmental]

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

it reads that there were numerous crashes due to various things, not all aircraft that completed this crashed and so it never happened !!

if you listen to some of us you may learn something

Wee Mad

Wee Mad - Lets just keep this simple, ok?

Please provide one example where an aircraft exceeded THEIR Vmo by 150 knots, and was controllable and stable.

So far, you have not provided one.

Next question,

Do you feel an aircraft will be controllable/stable at speeds exceeding Vmo +`150?

Are you willing to put your name to that claim?

You'll be the first, as weedwhacker doesn't even want to take upon that responsibility.

Originally posted by weemadmental
This was solved in later models with changes to the wing. so the spitfire could do this !!

Please show us the modifications made to the 767 which allow it to exceed Vmo by 150 knots and remain controllable/stable to hit a target with a 25' margin for error, with a "pilot" who has zero time in type, and less experience than a "pilot" who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by weemadmental
i have not lost creditability you have taken a qoute from the bottom of the whole page that you thinks sorts out your argument, as i have said before they knew they reached these speed due to the conditions that they met not by a speed dial that doesnt reach mach 1

Ohhhh. I see, they knew they exceeded Mach 1, not by instrumentation, but by the seat of their pants?

Really?

Ever heard the term Critical Mach?

It happens well below Mach 1, and causes a "buffet effect"

weedwhacker, you really need to get better guys than this.

stop googling things and quote stuff you clearly do not understand, instrumentation didn't reach Mach 1 so they could not tell you that by looking at the dial, there are numerous things that happen when you reach the speed of sound, buffeting can start as low at 0.5 Mach but if you know what you experience, have noted trans sonic effects and can be backed up by soinc booms being heard on the ground then yeah, two and two make four

Wee Mad

Originally posted by weemadmental
stop googling things and quote stuff you clearly do not understand, instrumentation didn't reach Mach 1 so they could not tell you that by looking at the dial,

Read again from your own source -

It is now known that traditional airspeed gauges using a pitot tube give inaccurately high readings in the transonic regime, apparently due to shock waves interacting with the tube or the static source. This led to problems then known as "Mach jump".[10]

[edit on 30-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]