An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level. (hoax)

SkepticOverlord

That is deception by obfuscated omission, by whomever created the material on which the opening post is based.

It look suspiciously similar to the one Balsamo was retailing here when he was pretending to be a porn star from Los Angeles called Tiffany. If I remember correctly - and to be honest I can't be bothered to look it up, because I wouldn't be able to face myself if I spent my time fact-checking stuff that was probably made up by sofa-surfing men pretending to be porn actors saving the world - the charitable explanation was that Balsamo had created his own diagram using the wrong figures by mistake.

Of course the less generous scenario is that he just invented it.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


The one common theme of all of those "(insert group here) for 9/11 Truth" is that they are all carbon copies of each other with the same garbage, the same lies, the same distortions, and the same people. Nothing new or amazing about them. When actually reading who's on board, they are all the same people. And yes there may be a few suckers in there, that don't know any better or are totally uninformed. Even some fakes and puppets!

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Outstanding work! You have done something the "Truth" Movement can never do! Actual research and posting the facts!

This is why the "Truth" Movement is a joke. That is why I switched sides from "Truther" to "Debunker". As soon as I saw how many times important facts the "Truth" Movement purposely left out, covered up, or ignored, it made me question EVERYTHING they have put forward. It was like pulling on a string and watching the whole sweater come apart.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

That puts this to bed as a hoax.

The opening post implies the graph's data is contained in a document from the FAA. However, the actual document contains no such data. Here's the relevant page for a 767-200 from the linked FAA document.

Yes, there has, indeed, been a hoax, but it's not the one you think it is. That said, I don't believe it was intentional:

The document that "dragonridr" referenced IS NOT a valid document for real world aviation. It is only for a model that was intended for use in "Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002". That version of Microsoft's flight simulation software is most often referred to as "FS2002".

From "dragonridr's" source:

Edition: FS2002 Boeing 767 – 200/300ER
Effective: February 12, 2003
Copyright: The Flying Tigers Group

"The Flying Tigers Group" is only a VIRTUAL AIRLINES. As a "Flight Simulator" enthusiast, I have met, and befriended, a few of their former members.

In the interest of honesty, and fairness to "NewAgeMan", I strongly suggest that you remove this thread from the "Hoax Bin".

Most sincerely,
Milt

I note Bens comments above but think this blows things out of the water because the Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual says this;

VMO/MMO is the airplane maximum certified operating speed and should not be exceeded intentionally. However, crews can occasionally experience an inadvertent overspeed. Airplanes have been flight tested beyond VMO/MMO to ensure smooth pilot inputs will return the airplane safely to the normal flight envelope

www.737ng.co.uk...

Thanks for moving this to the Hoax Bin where I can now reply. What a relief.

The FAA doc posted by SO himself absolutely confirmed the numbers posted by NewAgeMan in this and his previous thread that was also sent to the Hoax Bin. Check back and you will see that NAM already explained about Vno. Even in the image NAM posted above, it shows 519 knots True Air Speed at 23000 ft for an EAS of 360 (even higher than the 490 that was supposed to debunk these numbers). So all of NAMs numbers are confirmed correct by the government's own document which was posted here by the opposition.

All the vitriolic opposition in this thread just got crushed. I hope the opponents who are open minded will reconsider the numbers when they have time to study them. But at least the data speaks for itself to those who will listen. Have a great weekend everyone.

reply to post by BenReclused


Well called my buddy about the training manual he said he referenced that because you have to pay for the copy from Boeing which is what they referenced. Its in there sources section however there is another source as well this one actual rates it at 493 kts. instead of the 490 kts mentioned in the manual.
www.airliners.net...

Performance

767-200 - Max cruising speed 914km/h (493kt), economical cruising speed 854km/h (461kt). Range of basic aircraft with JT9Ds 5855km (3160nm), medium range version with CF6s 7135km (3850nm). 767-200ER - Speeds same. Range with PW4056s 12,269km (6625nm), with CF6s 12,352km (6670nm).

So id say the VG diagram is wrong unless he wants to show the source all we need is max cruising speed.

reply to post by neformore

neformore
I note Bens comments above but think this blows things out of the water because the Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual says this;

VMO/MMO is the airplane maximum certified operating speed and should not be exceeded intentionally. However, crews can occasionally experience an inadvertent overspeed. Airplanes have been flight tested beyond VMO/MMO to ensure smooth pilot inputs will return the airplane safely to the normal flight envelope

www.737ng.co.uk...

I disagree. "NewAgeMan's" premise isn't about whether, or not, a 767 can survive an "overspeed". It's about about whether, or not, an unmodified 767 can survive an airspeed of 510 KEAS at approximately 700 ft. ASL. Though I feel that it can, your source isn't, any where near, a confirmation of that.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


Hi Ben,

oh the irony..! and i must say i'm rather impressed that you're an honest debater with real attempted rebuttals. Please see your inbox for the PM i sent you.

Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by toidiem


I'm glad it got moved to HOAX where it belongs. I can't post in the 911 forum since my WATS is less than one.

This is how I see NAM's argument:

If I flip a coin twice and it lands heads both times, NAM will argue that the second flip had to be a tails since the probability for heads is 50%. NAM is misinterpreting a fake diagram to prove reality wrong. I know I'm beating a dead horse but I had to get my 2 cents in so NAM has more ammunition to feed his persecution complex.

reply to post by dragonridr

Performance

767-200 - Max cruising speed 914km/h (493kt), economical cruising speed 854km/h (461kt). Range of basic aircraft with JT9Ds 5855km (3160nm), medium range version with CF6s 7135km (3850nm). 767-200ER - Speeds same. Range with PW4056s 12,269km (6625nm), with CF6s 12,352km (6670nm).

Though your source IS correct, concerning the performance of a 767-200, there two major factors that you don't seem to be aware of:
1) Those specs. are based on the performance of a 767-200 at cruise altitude, and have no bearing on performance below that altitude.

2) Because the speed numbers ARE HIGHER and LOOK BETTER, aircraft manufacturers, almost always, use TAS (True Airspeed) in their performance specs. Operational specs., on the other hand, are ALWAYS determined by IAS (Indicated Airspeed). More often than not, operational specs. are given in CAS (Calibrated Airspeed):

Calibrated airspeed (CAS) is indicated airspeed corrected for instrument errors and position error (due to incorrect pressure at the static port caused by airflow disruption).

The following information about a 767-200 IS NOT in dispute:
1) It's maximum operational speed at lower altitudes is 360 KCAS (Vmo)

2) It's maximum operational speed at higher altitudes is .86M (Mmo)

3) It's maximum cruise speed is 493 KTAS

Using this "handy dandy" calculator, and the known information from above, I can determine that the minimum altitude of 22600 ft. IS REQUIRED to cruise at a speed of 493 KTAS without violating a Vmo of 360 KCAS. 493 KTAS at any altitude lower than 22600 ft. would, indeed, exceed that Vmo.

That said, 493 KTAS IS NOT the maximum operational speed of a 767-200. At 25750 ft., the aircraft can maintain a speed of 516 knots without violating either it's Vmo or Mmo:


See ya,
Milt

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Hi NAM,

In the future, please feel free to call me Milt. That is, after all, my name.

oh the irony..!

LOL

NO DOUBT! I never dreamed that I would be arguing against "allies", in support of a "Truther". Ain't life grand...

As you already know, I don't agree, in the least bit, with "SkepticOverlord's" decision to move this thread to the "Hoax Bin". That's especially true, considering his decision seemed to be based on information contained in a document written at the behest of a "virtual airline", for the operation of a "virtual aircraft". Hell, I'll bet I've got over a thousand "flight manuals" for various "virtual aircraft". At least ten of them are for assorted 767s, and none of them have the same operational specs. Most of them start with a disclaimer that say's they ARE NOT TO BE USED as a "real world" reference.

When I get a chance (It probably won't be tonight, though.), I'll PM him, and see if I can convince him to reinstate this thread. Heck, I was actually enjoying our "back and forth".

i must say i'm rather impressed that you're an honest debater with real attempted rebuttals.

Thank you! Your acknowledgement means a lot to an "Old Troll", such as myself.

Please see your inbox for the PM i sent you.

I've been there, and done that. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow.

See ya buddy,
Milt

reply to post by toidiem

toidiem

Check back and you will see that NAM already explained about Vno. Even in the image NAM posted above, it shows 519 knots True Air Speed at 23000 ft for an EAS of 360 (even higher than the 490 that was supposed to debunk these numbers). So all of NAMs numbers are confirmed correct by the government's own document

That's because that was it's true Vmo/Mmo (ie: faster).

The following, posted somewhere earlier in the thread, i think, is a also a reference to true max cruising speed (which of course takes place at high altitude, where the air is much much thinner) - also "faster" than the premise by which this thread was tossed into the "hoax" bin, last page before this one, although i have requested that, upon further review and evaluation of the data and the info, already presented by other members, including my apparent "foe" of "SAIC fame" and boy oh boy was i sure ever wrong about that one, eh? duh..lol, sorry again, BenReclused, (Milt), i guess i shot myself in the foot there in that case and yes, i can admit when i'm wrong or in error, it happens, nothing to be ashamed or to be overly worried or concerned about. it happens and we all make mistakes, no biggie..


files.abovetopsecret.com...

I didn't want to, God forbid, post the image itself, so you'll have to click on the link (dear reader), to see.

files.abovetopsecret.com...


May you also have a nice weekend, toidiem, and everyone, including S.O., neformore, the staff of ATS, choos, Milt, and dragonridr, and perhaps..even the "clapping guy" with the creepy and devilish avatar, although to be perfectly honest i don't get a good vibe off of him or his sudden appearance in the thread.

TGIF!

Best Regards,

NAM (it's not about me, but about WE)

January 10th, 2014.

BenReclused
I disagree. "NewAgeMan's" premise isn't about whether, or not, a 767 can survive an "overspeed". It's about about whether, or not, an unmodified 767 can survive an airspeed of 510 KEAS at approximately 700 ft. ASL. Though I feel that it can, your source isn't, any where near, a confirmation of that.

See ya,
Milt

edit on 970America/Chicago1RAmerica/Chicago2014-01-10T16:17:23-06:00Friday00000023America/Chicago by BenReclused because: Typo

although i cant confirm whether it can or not, i believe that it should be able to..

mostly from this Q&A from a NASA aerospace research engineer, so im led to believe this guy has done some research into flutter:

But flutter is different, because of the inertial coupling and the damping effect of the air.� So flutter speed does not remain a constant indicated airspeed as you increase altitude.� The flutter speed (expressed as an ias) decreases slowly as you increase altitude.� But nowhere near as fast as the indicated airspeed would decrease if you kept the true airspeed constant and increased altitude.
quest.arc.nasa.gov...

thats telling me that if TAS was held constant with increasing altitude critical flutter speed will slowly decrease, due to damping effect of the atmosphere or more atmosphere more damping..

and from the TCDS its labelled as 420K CAS at 18000feet which gives us 533K TAS.. since this NASA guy is telling me that critical flutter speed will increase the lower the altitude its safe to assume that a TAS of 533knots is safe enough.. im just using the lesser figures to be on the safe side, as M0.91 at 23000feet is 552K TAS..

so we can make a good educated guess that the critical flutter speed will be higher than 533K TAS below 18000feet.. so it should be safe to assume that flight 175 will not disintegrate due to flutter at 510K TAS at 700feet..

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

In reference to:

ADMIN NOTICE:

It has been confirmed in this post on page 27 of the thread, that a critical data point used for the premise in the opening post has been falsified by whomever created the material (not necessarily the fault of the thread author).

The assessment, quoted above, IS NOT, even in the least bit, accurate!

The "critical data points" that "NewAgeMan" has been, CONSISTENTLY, posting are as follows:

Vmo/Mmo limits for a standard 767 are 360/0.86M

Vd for a standard 767 is 420 knots

The FAA's "TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET A1NM", for the 767, ABSOLUTELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY, confirm those "critical data points":

Airspeed Limits:
VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VFC = 390 KCAS to 17,600 ft/382 KCAS at 23,000 ft/.87M above 26,000 ft, linear variation
between these points.
VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VLE = 270 KCAS/.82M
VLO = 270 KCAS/.82M

The only two relevant "critical data points" (to this discussion), that "dragonridr" posted are:

7. Normal Operating Speed True Vno = 460 – 490 kts
7.1. Normal Ops Speed Indicated Mno = 0.78m – 0.80m

In my previous post, to you, I made you aware of the fact that your source document wasn't valid in regard to "real world" aviation. It seems that wasn't enough to convince you of your error, so let's discuss the two pertinent speeds that are cited in your "relevant page"...

Though a 767's Vno is not mentioned in the FAA's OFFICIAL documentation, it's safe to assume (though I HATE to do that) that Vno and Vmo are, for the most part, the same parameter:

VMO Maximum operating limit speed.

VNO Maximum structural cruising speed or maximum speed for normal operations.

By definition, Vno would indeed be a "critical data point", but the variance of 30 knots, as shown above, indicates that it IS NOT as critical as, I'm sure, both Boeing, and the FAA, would say that it is.

As it relates to "real world" aircraft speeds, there is no such thing as "Mno".

Once again, and with all due respect, I strongly urge you to reinstate this thread. I have, absolutely, no doubt that, at least two of your "resident" aviation experts, "defcon5" and "Zaphod58" would agree with everything that I've stated in my two responses to you.

Most sincerely,
Milt

BenReclused
The FAA's "TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET A1NM", for the 767, ABSOLUTELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY, confirm those "critical data points":

That document describes airworthy requirements for an aircraft to receive an FAA certification to fly. It does not describe mechanical or engineering limits in any way.

BenReclused
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

In reference to:

ADMIN NOTICE:

It has been confirmed in this post on page 27 of the thread, that a critical data point used for the premise in the opening post has been falsified by whomever created the material (not necessarily the fault of the thread author).

The assessment, quoted above, IS NOT, even in the least bit, accurate!

The "critical data points" that "NewAgeMan" has been, CONSISTENTLY, posting are as follows:

Vmo/Mmo limits for a standard 767 are 360/0.86M

Vd for a standard 767 is 420 knots

The FAA's "TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET A1NM", for the 767, ABSOLUTELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY, confirm those "critical data points":

Airspeed Limits:
VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VFC = 390 KCAS to 17,600 ft/382 KCAS at 23,000 ft/.87M above 26,000 ft, linear variation
between these points.
VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VLE = 270 KCAS/.82M
VLO = 270 KCAS/.82M

The only two relevant "critical data points" (to this discussion), that "dragonridr" posted are:

7. Normal Operating Speed True Vno = 460 – 490 kts
7.1. Normal Ops Speed Indicated Mno = 0.78m – 0.80m

In my previous post, to you, I made you aware of the fact that your source document wasn't valid in regard to "real world" aviation. It seems that wasn't enough to convince you of your error, so let's discuss the two pertinent speeds that are cited in your "relevant page"...

Though a 767's Vno is not mentioned in the FAA's OFFICIAL documentation, it's safe to assume (though I HATE to do that) that Vno and Vmo are, for the most part, the same parameter:

VMO Maximum operating limit speed.

VNO Maximum structural cruising speed or maximum speed for normal operations.

By definition, Vno would indeed be a "critical data point", but the variance of 30 knots, as shown above, indicates that it IS NOT as critical as, I'm sure, both Boeing, and the FAA, would say that it is.

As it relates to "real world" aircraft speeds, there is no such thing as "Mno".

Once again, and with all due respect, I strongly urge you to reinstate this thread. I have, absolutely, no doubt that, at least two of your "resident" aviation experts, "defcon5" and "Zaphod58" would agree with everything that I've stated in my two responses to you.

Most sincerely,
Milt

edit on 971America/Chicago1RAmerica/Chicago2014-01-11T16:19:31-06:00Saturday00000031America/Chicago by BenReclused because: Typo

Actually VMO and VNO are different VMO has to take into account bird strikes on the airframe. And must maintain a speed where this does not occur.For example i read a report in france there vno was slightly higher then the US faa approved speed , And bird pieces actually managed to get into the cockpit by entering between the windscreen and the body of the aircraft. The windscreen is the weakest part of the craft and is always the main limitation to VMO.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Hello "SkepticOverlord",

I, truly DO, feel honored.

That document describes airworthy requirements for an aircraft to receive an FAA certification to fly.

Absolutely! Stuff like:

Airspeed Limits:
VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VFC = 390 KCAS to 17,600 ft/382 KCAS at 23,000 ft/.87M above 26,000 ft, linear variation
between these points.
VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VLE = 270 KCAS/.82M
VLO = 270 KCAS/.82M

And:
The "critical data points" that "NewAgeMan" has been, CONSISTENTLY, posting are as follows:

Vmo/Mmo limits for a standard 767 are 360/0.86M

Vd for a standard 767 is 420 knots

It does not describe mechanical or engineering limits in any way.

That, my friend, IS, EXACTLY, what I've been trying demonstrate to "NewAgeMan", and I WOULD, MOST CERTAINLY, APPRECIATE the opportunity to continue with that demonstration... AND do so, with this thread in it's proper place...

Besides that:
"NewAgeMan" ISN'T trying to "HOAX" anyone!

With that out of the way, let's give an "honorable mention" to the "manual" that your "airworthy requirements" are from:

This manual is written using the references and interviews obtained from real world sources. However, this
is developed for the Virtual flight and MS flight simulation only.
Under no circumstances this manual is to be used as a reference for the real world flight training.

Would you care to guess who might look like "hoaxer" now?

I couldn't resist that, and I sincerely hope that you accept it with the humor that was intended.

Note to "NewAgeMan:
I am, indeed, quite impressed with your honesty! And that, my friend, is the very reason that I have been "arguing" on your behalf. Hell, I'm so damn impressed, that I'd truly feel honored if you would allow me to add you to my "friends list". May I?

Note to "SkepticOverlord":
Speaking of my "friends list", I'd also consider it to be a GREAT HONOR if you'd allow me to do the same with you. How about it?

It's always best for "Old Trolls" to ask for permission first... so I always do...

With the utmost of sincerity:
Milt

reply to post by dragonridr

Actually VMO and VNO are different VMO has to take into account bird strikes on the airframe. And must maintain a speed where this does not occur

I know that! That's why my statement included the phrase, "for the most part":

Though a 767's Vno is not mentioned in the FAA's OFFICIAL documentation, it's safe to assume (though I HATE to do that) that Vno and Vmo are, for the most part, the same parameter

The windscreen is the weakest part of the craft and is always the main limitation to VMO.

The only part of that, that I take issue with, is your use of the word "always". It tends to falsify that statement...

I've enjoyed reading quite a few of your responses, both here and in other threads, and would also, consider it an honor to have you on my "friends list". Is that okay?

See ya buddy,
Milt

PS to ALL:
You'd better not start calling me: "Milt, the Friendly Troll!" If you do, you WILL regret it...

BenReclused
"NewAgeMan" ISN'T trying to "HOAX" anyone!

I agree.

The hoax forum is well-populated with threads where the author had no ill-intent, but the source material turned out to be dubious at best. Since the core premise of the original data is based on FAA certification requirements, not mechanical/engineering specifications, there looks to be an intent to hoax by those who created the material.

If the originating premise of this thread can be supported by actual Boeing documents and specifications, then it will be removed from hoax. But if you dig a tad bit deeper into the "Flying Tigers" and flight-sim enthusiasts, their attention to detain makes "anal retentive" look like an ad-hoc approach. I know people on the X-Plane team (waiting on response… they might not work there any more, it's been 4 years), and they pour through engineering specifications with an obsessive madness.

My only real-world experience is back in engineering school. 24-inch long Balsa wood bridges under 2 pounds have no right to hold more than 1,000 pounds. Despite the math saying mine should hold up to 800 pounds (200 the lower limit), it held just under 1,000 before failure of one truss. The university's record was just over 1,600 pounds. The math, the lab, and the real world are all three very different things. Any engineer worth his degree will confirm that, and that one does not dictate the other two would be impossible.