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

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Please see your PM inbox, thanks.

So now the argument becomes, instead of the numbers being wrong, the numbers don't indicate actual structural failure? Well, that's already been covered too, for those that read. These numbers are relevant to a degree but with built in safety margins. Nobody is claiming the plane would immediately fall apart a few knots over Vd. The specs are somewhat limited by what the test pilots can do without crashing. Actually, doesn't matter anyway. The plane can't go that fast (500 K) in level flight at sea level. Just watched a vid where that is stated by an aeronautical engineer. I know you will probably counter that it must be from a Boeing engineer, but they want to keep their jobs, so.... The Boeing rep saying "[giggle] Not a chance. That would be like a rocket." is about as close as you should expect to get, along with all the other expert testimony.

Bottom line (pun intended): the plane speed debate is only one of many gaping holes in the OS.

toidiem

Bottom line (pun intended): the plane speed debate is only one of many gaping holes in the OS.

The only "problem" being, that it actually happened - there was a plane there, that hit the south tower at a certain level and in a certain way.

Thus the title of the thread.

However, instead, of flying headlong into the "honey pot" of the OS as it relates to these issues, including the nature of the twin towers (and building 7) complete destruction, first the south tower, which although hit second was hit lower down across multiple floors, from around the impact area, (ie: more weight, "collapses" sooner) and then the north tower, in the exact same way about a half hour later, and becoming, say, a "no-planer", which is utterly absurd in light of the physical record of the events - we get to retain our sanity and remain in a domain that is congruent with the only thing that CAN be believed, in light of the "data points", the real ones.

So this thread is really as much for John Lear "the celebrated airman", as it is for the average reader, and even, in the final analysis, the "skeptics".

What you wish or choose to believe is up to you, dear reader, but the facts don't lie, they cannot be ignored and they must be reconciled with, based in the real world "data points" and what they mean and signify (without "hoaxing").

There is no precedent for airspeed with controlled flight and without experiencing structural failure for this aircraft type, before or after 9/11, in the entire recorded history of modern aviation, except "UA175" (Vd + 90K) and "AA77" (Vd + 80K). That is a true statement.

And if people want to know what typically happens beyond Vd, beyond what happens during certification flight testing (covered in the OP), say when a plane spirals out of control from high altitude under the pull of nothing but gravity - there are, as we've carefully examined, the precedents of near mach 1.0 flight at altitude (but think EAS, which drops significantly with increasing altitude where the air is much much thinner), that amount to airspeeds (and aerodynamic pressure equivalency) at most 10 knots above Vd, and at least 85 knots, near sea level LESS than, the "alleged" UA175 was recorded both by observation and radar analysis, 90 knots if we add the windspeed vector to the recorded groundspeed, in other words much MUCH faster, than the point at which out-of-control spiraling planes plummeted to the earth, exceeding in only one case (EA990), the aircraft's Vd design dive limit (by 5 knots).

So engine power and performance then also becomes an issue, because the plane after leveling off from it's controlled dive, while maneuvering deftly, accelerated, to maintain a groundspeed of 510 knots, 515 when the windspeed vector is added (very light wind to the N/W) - which is perhaps another reason why John Lear is (was..?) in "the honey pot" stating that there is and can be no plane there at all, not unlike Schultz on Hogan's Hero's.. I, see, NOTHING!

Dear John Lear, (if you happen to be reading this, and if you haven't yet, you will be..),

That, my good man, isn't a flying sound-making hologram, and you darn well know it.

Stop feeding the honey pot. You of all people should know better, and surely you do.

I refuse to believe that it drove you insane.


Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

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.

I agree, BUT, and as I see it, that's the same thing you're doing by giving a "flight simulator document" more precedence than an "official FAA document". And NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE, nor do I feel, that you have any "ill-intent". I only feel that you are mistaken.

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.

I don't disagree with that... And, that is, indeed, the "hoax" that I AM attempting to bust.

My ONLY contention, regarding your decision to declare this thread a hoax, is that your decision was based on information that was found, ONLY, in a "flight simulator document", and NOT in official "FAA certification requirements", OR EVEN, real world "mechanical/engineering specifications".

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.

That IS, absolutely true, and I don't have to "dig" any further, I AM ONE of those people.

I know people on the X-Plane team (waiting on response… they might not work there any more, it's been 4 years)

Though I haven't checked, I'm sure they're still in "business". X-Plane IS VERY popular! And, that is especially true now! Microsoft closed it's "flight simulator development team" down, years ago.

they pour through engineering specifications with an obsessive madness.

Yes, they do! That is because X-Plane's "flight model" is more "physics" oriented than Microsoft's "flight model".

Microsoft's "flight model" is more reliant upon an aircraft's known behavioral characteristics, under known conditions. In other words, to improve the realism of an "aircraft" flown in Microsoft's "sim", one must BALANCE that "aircraft's physical characteristics" with it's known behavioral characteristics. There are many, in this old world, that consider me to be one of the world's experts in regard to that sort of "tweaking".

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.

That's cool!

"My only real-world experience", regarding real flight dynamics, was with radio control aircraft that I used to build when I was in my teens. Most them had 40"-72" wingspans, and BAEs (Big Ass Engines) on the front of them. I once ruined the back of a "Volkswagen Beetle", by crashing into it... I sure went through an awful lot of balsa, spruce, maple, airplane dope, and good old silk span, back in the day.

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.

I don't doubt that, at all.

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.

That is, indeed, what is at the heart of my contention:
To this point, nobody has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that "NewAgeMan's" assertion of, "An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level", to be wrong, or even unlikely.

Quite sincerely, your decision to move this thread to the "Hoax Bin", was based on, nothing more than, flawed information, that was found in an unofficial source, and I truly don't understand why you can't see that.

If the originating premise of this thread can be supported by actual Boeing documents and specifications, then it will be removed from hoax.

Well, the only "premise" that I've been putting forward, is that the VERY SAME requirement should have been met, BEFORE "NewAgeMan's" assertion was deemed to be a "HOAX". Not afterward, and the other way around...

Once again, I strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this matter, and, thank you, very much, for your time, and your attention.

Most sincerely,
Milt

Hoax..., or "hoaxed" "hoax"?


Here is the statement containing the justification for placing this thread in the "hoax" bin.


post by SkepticOverlord


Salient quote:

SkepticOverlord

Which does indeed include the much higher "Vno" speed as discovered, and confirmed, by dragonridr.

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

from Milt's post (and as i've just discovered, the edited OP...!),

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).

Here is where i showed that the "Flying Tigers" weren't even reprensenting, accurately, the real world "Vno", which is no longer used by Jet Aricraft, replaced by Vmo/Mmo, but instad the Max Crusing Speed, where even in that case they were short by about 6 knots, although it depends on the cruising altitude, so they could be referencing something at a slightly lower altitiude than 35,000 feet with the 493 knots ref. (it's 499 @ 35,000 feet, max operating crusing speed), yet mistakenly as the "Vno" even though Vno hasn't been used on Jets since the late 1960's, replaced with Vmo/Mmo (360K/.86M).


post by NewAgeMan



And i fail to see how the "Flying Tigers" Microsoft FS2000 flight sim flight operations manual, replaces or trumps the FAA TCDS "data points" (provided by Boeing), including the Vd design dive limit, as established through certification filght testing (explored in the OP).

None of this renders ANY of the data i've presented in the OP, or anywhere in this thread, to be in any way faulty or misleading, as addressed by BenReclused or more precisely, Milt, here..


post by BenReclused



Thus, unless S.O. would like to correct the error and misunderstanding and/or move the thread back to the appropriate 9/11 Conspiracies Forum, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this latest little fiasco/episode/escapade (not sure what to call it), of the thread, is that the very premise and basis by which the "data points" contained in the OP have been herein labelled an unwitting (unintentional) "hoax" - is itself an unwitting or unintentional hoax, based on a simple misunderstanding, unless and until clarified or acknowledged and corrected by S.O. for making the contention in the first place, and then re-titling the thread with "(hoax)" after my thread title (which should have read "near" sea level instead of "@" sea level), and tossing the thread, confidently, into the hoax bin.

Regardless of the outcome or how S.O. wishes to handle it, the premise and basis and the justification and explanation as to why it was moved here (where it's relatively quiet anyway... which is nice), was a faulty premise, as shown.


No ill-will though, but relative to an issue like this, and an overall historical "data point" of this magnitude, these distinctions MUST be made and when and if they are determined, they must be based and founded on truth and honesty, and the utmost integrity which as S.O. has pointed out, also speaks directly to credibility.

Out of fairness, if there is no intention of moving this thread back to the 9/11 Conspiracies Forum, then at the very least the title of the thread and opening statement, by S.O. ought to be removed and the thread title and OP restored to it's original condition as it was originally intended and created by the author (moi), because it's a false statement that "ADMIN NOTICE:" and is based on (evidently) false information, as if some sort of jab at Rob Balsamo &/or the good men of Pilots for 9/11 Truth who's collective experience and research i've accessed in the process of creating the content of this thread, including the OP, up until the present post.


Best Regards, (Deny Ignorance?),

NAM
January 12th, 2014

toidiem
So now the argument becomes, instead of the numbers being wrong, the numbers don't indicate actual structural failure? Well, that's already been covered too, for those that read. These numbers are relevant to a degree but with built in safety margins. Nobody is claiming the plane would immediately fall apart a few knots over Vd. The specs are somewhat limited by what the test pilots can do without crashing. Actually, doesn't matter anyway. The plane can't go that fast (500 K) in level flight at sea level. Just watched a vid where that is stated by an aeronautical engineer. I know you will probably counter that it must be from a Boeing engineer, but they want to keep their jobs, so.... The Boeing rep saying "[giggle] Not a chance. That would be like a rocket." is about as close as you should expect to get, along with all the other expert testimony.

Bottom line (pun intended): the plane speed debate is only one of many gaping holes in the OS.

depends how you look at it.. if you believe that the plane will fall apart due to flutter, i dont think that is the case.. the 767 critical flutter speed is over 533K TAS and may well be over 552K TAS as these are the highest TAS limits given in the TCDS..

no one has been able to confirm for me if critical flutter speed is linked to TAS and not EAS yet, apart from this Q&A from a NASA guy called steve smith..

There is, in fact, an altitude effect on flutter speed that is different from the altitude effects on the rest of the aerodynamics, but it is not as severe as many people say and think.� Many people apply a "constant true airspeed" rule that is much too severe, and can in itself create other safety problems (like unwillingness to fly fast enough to escape sink, to clear a high ridge, etc).
�
As you may know, most aerodynamic forces are scaled with the dynamic pressure, q = 1/2 (rho) V^2.� So as you go up in altitude and the density, rho, decreases, you compensate by adding more V^2 to get the same lift and drag.� It also turns out that the pressure that a pitot tube measures is the dynamic pressure, (Pt - Ps = q) , so indicated airspeed (ias) tracks dynamic pressure.� Conclusion:� Constant indicated airspeed means constant aerodynamic properties.� The same lift/per unit area for a given angle of attack.� The only minor deviation from this characteristic is the subtle effect of Reynolds number.
�
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...

and also this but this is less "credible":

But flutter does not depend on Indicated Air Speed/dynamic pressure. It is directly related to True Airspeed - the velocity of the air passing by the air frame. The velocity of the excitation force is the prime concern, not the magnitude. It is very possible to exceed this critical "flutter speed" without encountering flutter if there is no initial disturbance. But if the critical flutter speed is exceeded and then a disturbance is encountered, the aircraft structure will bgin to oscillate in response to the velocity of the passing air.

www.vansaircraft.com...

reply to post by choos


As stated in post 2 of the thread, in terms of aerodynamic or air pressure equivalency, 510 knots, near sea level, represents as an EAS (equivalent airspeed) of 722 knots or 1.19M, at 22,000 feet, and more at higher altitudes where the precedents, as addressed earlier in the thread, took place.

In terms of airspeed, for this aircraft type, there is no comparable precedent in the recorded history of modern aviation - true statement.


TAS is a function of EAS, because equivalent dynamic pressure must be factored in the Vmo/Mmo and Vd/Md, where Vd/Md is established as the outer flight envelope first by wind tunnel and then during certification flight testing, and thus it's the pre-flutter threshold for the aircraft, although anything reaching or exceeding Vmo/Mmo (max operating limit) can result in flutter and structural failure as per the precedents outlined, although excessive G-forces have also shown to be a major factor ie: China Air 006. and TWA 841.

It should be noted that the south tower plane not only maintained speeds exceeding it's Vd limit by at least NINETY knots, for over a minute, both during the dive and final approach, but also accelerated during level flight to retain that speed through to the point of impact - all the while retaining tight flight control and without experiencing any structural failure (until impact with the south tower of course).

IAS isn't used anymore on Jets, as surely touched upon somewhere in this thread, but CAS and TAS, and EAS, as the measure of relative dynamic pressure at low vs. high altitude. There's no way to de-link flutter onset from EAS by using any other airspeed type because TAS is based on EAS and the / used in Vmo/Mmo and Vd/Md. It (flutter) is always around or just outside the flight envelop defined by Vd/Md in certification flight testing as described here.

NewAgeMan

First referencing the A1NM TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET whereby the Vd established by flutter testing during certification, is:

VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.

TAS is CAS corrected for non-standard temp and pressure.

In other words, at sea level, TAS is pretty much equal to CAS.

As you climb, TAS increases, which is why EAS needs to be considered when understanding dynamic pressure based on altitude.

In short, TAS changes with altitude (anyone can find this out if they just try to use Google), but you are right that "flutter" is based on TAS, which is why one needs to understand EAS, and how to calculate it.

This is the very reason manufacturers set two limits based on altitude (/), as you know, where we have Vmo/Mmo and Vd/Md.

choos

toidiem
So now the argument becomes, instead of the numbers being wrong, the numbers don't indicate actual structural failure? Well, that's already been covered too, for those that read. These numbers are relevant to a degree but with built in safety margins. Nobody is claiming the plane would immediately fall apart a few knots over Vd. The specs are somewhat limited by what the test pilots can do without crashing. Actually, doesn't matter anyway. The plane can't go that fast (500 K) in level flight at sea level. Just watched a vid where that is stated by an aeronautical engineer. I know you will probably counter that it must be from a Boeing engineer, but they want to keep their jobs, so.... The Boeing rep saying "[giggle] Not a chance. That would be like a rocket." is about as close as you should expect to get, along with all the other expert testimony.

Bottom line (pun intended): the plane speed debate is only one of many gaping holes in the OS.

depends how you look at it.. if you believe that the plane will fall apart due to flutter, i dont think that is the case.. the 767 critical flutter speed is over 533K TAS and may well be over 552K TAS as these are the highest TAS limits given in the TCDS..

no one has been able to confirm for me if critical flutter speed is linked to TAS and not EAS yet, apart from this Q&A from a NASA guy called steve smith..

There is, in fact, an altitude effect on flutter speed that is different from the altitude effects on the rest of the aerodynamics, but it is not as severe as many people say and think.� Many people apply a "constant true airspeed" rule that is much too severe, and can in itself create other safety problems (like unwillingness to fly fast enough to escape sink, to clear a high ridge, etc).
�
As you may know, most aerodynamic forces are scaled with the dynamic pressure, q = 1/2 (rho) V^2.� So as you go up in altitude and the density, rho, decreases, you compensate by adding more V^2 to get the same lift and drag.� It also turns out that the pressure that a pitot tube measures is the dynamic pressure, (Pt - Ps = q) , so indicated airspeed (ias) tracks dynamic pressure.� Conclusion:� Constant indicated airspeed means constant aerodynamic properties.� The same lift/per unit area for a given angle of attack.� The only minor deviation from this characteristic is the subtle effect of Reynolds number.
�
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...

and also this but this is less "credible":

But flutter does not depend on Indicated Air Speed/dynamic pressure. It is directly related to True Airspeed - the velocity of the air passing by the air frame. The velocity of the excitation force is the prime concern, not the magnitude. It is very possible to exceed this critical "flutter speed" without encountering flutter if there is no initial disturbance. But if the critical flutter speed is exceeded and then a disturbance is encountered, the aircraft structure will bgin to oscillate in response to the velocity of the passing air.

www.vansaircraft.com...

edit on 12-1-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

Flutter is not the reason for for restrictions below cruising altitude it is fear of birds striking the craft. This is why they limit airspeed. In fact if you look at it from physics lower altitudes decrease the chance of flutter because of pressure. This will sound counter intuitive but it lowers the speed of the air over the wings which increases stability.It also gives it lift since the pressure on the top of the wing is higher then on the bottom. This is why you can fly your mach rating at any level if it wasnt for the fact birds can fly as well and often hit airplanes. The weakest part of any jet is its windscreen at say 350 knots the bird wont crash through though it has happened to 767s before. Higher altitudes actually create more stress on the wing struts because it allows them to bend more creating a shearing action this is why early on in flight when they were trying to break the sound barrier wings were literally sheared off the plane . Military pilots in Iraq even reported at low altitude going to mach was a smoother ride they dont get to do that except in a war zone because of the sonic boom but in war that only adds fear like when the news heard them all over baghdad.

reply to post by dragonridr


Please provide a credible cite demonstrating how bird strike is the defining limitation for Vmo/Mmo. Thanks.

For the purpose of this thread and the basis of the op, we're not using Vmo/Mmo however, because we're already beyond it whereby Vmo/Mmo is not less than 80% of Vd/Md.

For example, with regards to the Boeing 727, from one of the precedent examples we looked carefully at earlier, it's Vd/Md is not listed anywhere not even in it's TCDS and can only be determined by a serious of aeronautical calcs based on it's Vmo/Mmo, which defines the beginning of it's outer flight envelope.

Are you not the least bit concerned either in terms of the premise and basis under which this thread was moved to the "hoax" bin..?

NewAgeMan
Are you not the least bit concerned either in terms of the premise and basis under which this thread was moved to the "hoax" bin..?

Well, as the title of this thread "An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level." is just a hoax pushed by some people, the HOAX bin seems the correct place for it!

reply to post by hellobruce


So far as yet no one has established beyond a reasonable doubt (except based on their loyalty to the OS narrative and a certain preconceived assumptive bias founded on that "truth") that it (an unmodified, older Boeing 767-222) could or ought to be expected to be able to fly, as observed, at 510 knots near sea level, and i was referring to the premise and basis by which the thread was MOVED, the title altered, and the note added to the top of the OP based on what's been shown to have been a faulty premise, at best a simple misunderstanding, or at worst, the very thing it accuses the OP &/or his sources of perpetrating with knowing intent based on faulty data, which itself is a false statement because it's simply not true, as shown.

I would appreciate that unless you have something directly relevant to add, or correct, or clarify, refute or rebut, then why bother with the catcalls from the stands cheering on "your side" of the debate i fail to see what value that adds to the discussion.

At least BenReclused, Milt, is an honest debator with real attempted rebuttals, something that perhaps we might have the opportunity to return to once this oversight and misunderstanding is cleared up.

NAM

NewAgeMan
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Please provide a credible cite demonstrating how bird strike is the defining limitation for Vmo/Mmo. Thanks.

For the purpose of this thread and the basis of the op, we're not using Vmo/Mmo however, because we're already beyond it whereby Vmo/Mmo is not less than 80% of Vd/Md.

For example, with regards to the Boeing 727, from one of the precedent examples we looked carefully at earlier, it's Vd/Md is not listed anywhere not even in it's TCDS and can only be determined by a serious of aeronautical calcs based on it's Vmo/Mmo, which defines the beginning of it's outer flight envelope.

Are you not the least bit concerned either in terms of the premise and basis under which this thread was moved to the "hoax" bin..?

edit on 12-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

Well ill tell you what lets see what aa aircraft manufacturer had to say about flying above restrictions. This is from airbus in response to a pilot that thought he was asking a stupid question.

"Flying at Vmo/Mmo is not forbidden [and] is possible with sidestick in neutral and no forces applied on the stick.
"Flying at a speed higher than Vmo/Mmo means flying into the peripheral flight envelope; although it is not operationally authorized to fly deliberately outside the normal flight envelope, it is not unsafe (in isolation) and it may happen (strong head gust during descent at Vmo/Mmo, or engines commanded at full power in level flight and pilot momentarily not in monitor/control of the speed/trajectory). [In such cases] the high speed protection will be activated (threshold is Vmo/Mmo plus a margin less a phase advance) if the sidestick is left in neutral, the protection will command a nose-up load factor until the speed is back below Vmo/Mmo ... But if, for whatever reason, the pilot wants to hold a speed higher than Vmo/Mmo, he can by maintaining steady nose down sidestick order. He will be warned by the permanent and unusual forces to be applied to the sidestick (in addition to the oral overspeed warning); at max, for instance, it may be flying steadily at Vmo+16 knots with full nose down sidestick deflection.
"The high speed protection is tuned in a way that guarantees that any reasonable excursion into the peripheral flight envelope ... will contain the speed below VD/MD [VD is design diving speed. MD is maximum diving speed]. For instance ... in the case when the aircraft would perform a dive with a pitch attitude of minus fifteen degrees, go through Vmo/Mmo at this pitch attitude, with no pilot recovery action greater than 1.5g and occurring only after reaching the threshold of overspeed warning. This is also checked against the most severe gusts and windshears that would be encountered while flying at Vmo/Mmo."
This seems to be a case where the pilot felt he was asking a "wise guy" question that elucidated a "wise" answer.

www.aviationtoday.com...-J5dWYE

And here is the FAA regulations on bird strikes.

Windshield panes directly in front of the pilots in the normal conduct of their duties, and the supporting structures for these panes, must withstand, without penetration, the impact of a four-pound bird when the velocity of the airplane (relative to the bird along the airplane's flight path) is equal to the value of VC, at sea level, selected under §25.335(a).

And this is further down

Impact with a 4-pound bird when the velocity of the airplane relative to the bird along the airplane's flight path is equal to Vc at sea level or 0.85Vc at 8,000 feet, whichever is more critical;

NewAgeMan
So far as yet no one has established beyond a reasonable doubt (except based on their loyalty to the OS narrative and a certain preconceived assumptive bias founded on that "truth") that it (an unmodified, older Boeing 767-222) could or ought to be expected to be able to fly, as observed, at 510 knots near sea level,

It has been established - except you refuse to accept that reality - you somehow think a aircraft would fall apart as soon as some magic number is exceeded, with no basis in fact for that claim! Evidence has been posted that planes have exceeded their "magic number" and never fell apart, but you ignore them as if you agreed it would totally destroy your conspiracy theory.

something that perhaps we might have the opportunity to return to once this oversight and misunderstanding is cleared up.

There is no oversight, and the misunderstanding is on your part, thinking a plane cannot exceed some "magic number" without falling apart.

NewAgeMan
...except based on their loyalty to the OS narrative...

Why do you keep parroting that insulting 9/11-Truth tripe? It insults the intelligence of all readers to white-wash everyone who doesn't agree with you with that detestable nonsense.

Seriously. Stop letting someone else drive your brain.

NewAgeMan
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Please provide a credible cite demonstrating how bird strike is the defining limitation for Vmo/Mmo. Thanks.

For the purpose of this thread and the basis of the op, we're not using Vmo/Mmo however, because we're already beyond it whereby Vmo/Mmo is not less than 80% of Vd/Md.

For example, with regards to the Boeing 727, from one of the precedent examples we looked carefully at earlier, it's Vd/Md is not listed anywhere not even in it's TCDS and can only be determined by a serious of aeronautical calcs based on it's Vmo/Mmo, which defines the beginning of it's outer flight envelope.

Are you not the least bit concerned either in terms of the premise and basis under which this thread was moved to the "hoax" bin..?

edit on 12-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

Oh almost forgot my buddy sent me this showing that planes have extremely exceeded there flight envelopes and its kind of a cool story as well because i never heard it make the news.

FedEx Flight 705, a McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30, was a case of a FedEx Flight Engineer who, facing a dismissal, attempted to hijack the plane and crash it into FedEx Headquarters in order for his family to collect his life insurance policy. After being attacked and severely injured, the flight crew was able to fight back and land the plane safely. In order to keep the attacker off balance and out of the cockpit the crew had to perform extreme maneuvers, including a barrel roll and a dive so fast the airplane couldn't measure its speed. Had the crew not been able to exceed the plane's flight envelope, the crew may not have been successful.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by dragonridr


The basis and premise of the OP and thread discussion isn't about Vmo/Mmo or over max operational limit "overspeed" capacity, but the Vd/Md flight envelope as explained here and how far past the design dive speed limit (not the max operating limit, or the max cruising speed limit) an unmodified 767-200 can successfully fly while retaining flight control and without experiencing structural failure.

Also, in what way and how precisely, did that reference, cited earlier in the thread, show or prove that bird strike is the artificial limitation establishing the Vmo/Mmo max operating speed, when what you've referenced speaks to an overspeed incursion into the flight envelope, and in truth reveals how difficult it would be to successfully pilot through, not only past Vmo, to the Vd design dive limit, but to the point of and exceeding that flight envelope limit, in this case by NINETY knots over Vd?

Why obsess over the Vmo/Mmo max operating limit, when that was never the basis of the OP and the content and subject of this thread?

And again, i don't understand why you don't seem to have any concern, whatsoever, with the premise and basis and the justification for the title change, opening statement edit, and the moving of the thread into the "hoax" bin.

If an error was made or there was a misunderstanding, why not make a statement or implore S.O. to return the thread to it's original state and return it to the appropriate 9/11 Conspiracy Forum?

NewAgeMan
If an error was made or there was a misunderstanding, why not make a statement or implore S.O. to return the thread to it's original state and return it to the appropriate 9/11 Conspiracy Forum?

It IS in the appropriate forum - why don't you understand that?

NewAgeMan
reply to post by dragonridr

 

The basis and premise of the OP and thread discussion isn't about Vmo/Mmo or over max operational limit "overspeed" capacity, but the Vd/Md flight envelope as explained here and how far past the design dive speed limit (not the max operating limit, or the max cruising speed limit) an unmodified 767-200 can successfully fly while retaining flight control and without experiencing structural failure.

Also, in what way and how precisely, did that reference, cited earlier in the thread, show or prove that bird strike is the artificial limitation establishing the Vmo/Mmo max operating speed, when what you've referenced speaks to an overspeed incursion into the flight envelope, and in truth reveals how difficult it would be to successfully pilot through, not only past Vmo, to the Vd design dive limit, but to the point of and exceeding that flight envelope limit, in this case by NINETY knots over Vd?

Why obsess over the Vmo/Mmo max operating limit, when that was never the basis of the OP and the content and subject of this thread?

And again, i don't understand why you don't seem to have any concern, whatsoever, with the premise and basis and the justification for the title change, opening statement edit, and the moving of the thread into the "hoax" bin.

If an error was made or there was a misunderstanding, why not make a statement or implore S.O. to return the thread to it's original state and return it to the appropriate 9/11 Conspiracy Forum?

edit on 12-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: typo

First of all dont put words in my mouth i didnt say the only one. Second as in that fedex DC 10 the craft will do whatever the pilot tells it to i showed you. As far as vno you're just being silly now Airbus told you the plane is capable of exceeding vno if its in a dive or not is immaterial. And you ask why obsess over it you claim as soon as a plane flies outside its flight envelope its doomed well no its not just like the fedex flight that held together doing a barrel roll with a wide bodied jet. Something it wasnt designed to do by the way !!!! So if a terrorist was behind the stick he can easily exceed safe operating limits and exceed even its design limits. Though he was well within them because the plane has to be tested to tolerances well above their flight envelope and is decreased to take into account things like bird strikes and age of the aircraft. If you dont care if the aircraft will survive you can do almost anything planes just dont disintegrate if you exceed even their maximum tolerances something might break but you may still fly depending on what it is.

Ps the Only reason this went on as long as it did is Boening charges 600.00 for a custom flight manual and they only like to make them for a company and then there copyrighted boening will not allow them online but in excerpts without suing you.

SkepticOverlord

NewAgeMan
...except based on their loyalty to the OS narrative...

Why do you keep parroting that insulting 9/11-Truth tripe? It insults the intelligence of all readers to white-wash everyone who doesn't agree with you with that detestable nonsense.

Seriously. Stop letting someone else drive your brain.

Then what is the basis for the opposition, including the "reasoning" and premise by which you moved the thread, and re-titled and re-edited the OP - relative to the data as it's been presented?


It's unprecedented nature cannot be simply overlooked or ignored.


Thus i can't think of any other reason why someone, particularly a scientifically minded "skeptic" would be so opposed to it or willing to go to any lengths to try to deny or refute, or even obfuscate (although i have to presume is was just an error based on a lack of understanding of the material presented), it makes no sense if one is supposed to be looking at the data as it really is with an objective, analytical mindset.

At the very least it ought to raise some very serious questions, particularly in light of the actual phenomenon of the occurrence of the destruction of the twin towers (and building 7) themselves whereby the plane impacts were (sold?) as the apparent causal mechanism of those buildings subsequent destruction, first the south tower, hit lower down and across multiple floors, and then the north tower in the exact same manner, about a half hour later (burned "longer")... do you not see what i mean or am pointing to as a type of psychological barrier or biased resistance of some kind? What else would or could it be based on if not the impression we were all under based on the traditional OS narrative, as it was rendered and presented ie: planes hit, buildings collapsed - we were attacked!"...?

I think it's been shown rather clearly that the relative airspeed involved was unpredecended in recorded aviation history, both prior to, and after 9/11.

It's certainly not a case of - "nothing unusual to see here".. please move along..


Where is the incredulity in regards to the notion that it's par for the course and not an unexpected occurrence, both as it relates to the airspeed involved, as well as the nature of the twin towers destruction which took place to within 4-6 seconds of absolute free fall for any freely dropped object from the same height in nothing but air alone or in short nothing vs. steel and the path of maximal resistance..?

These are physical events and causal phenomenon under observation, where it's very possible that these observations do not define this info and data as a "hoax" - but instead, when taken together in the context and all information and phenomenon according to the proper use of Occam's Razor, reveal that the real hoax is what was presented and represented on 9/11, not to say that there was no plane or the buildings did not do what they did, but a murderous hoax of Hitlerian and Orwellian proportion, and then some.

False flag psy-ops as a pretext to the waging of war and to crack down against Civil Liberty as part of a big power-grab based on a "Big Lie" isn't itself out of the realm of conceivable, nor without precedent in human history. whereby that which we were/are led to believe or told, or supposed to presume, as the "public myth" (Zelikow) may turn out, upon further evaluation and close inspection, to be a LIE, and a whitewash cover up of the false flag psy-op itself, delivered up by the narrative, compliments in this case of patsy hijackers who i should add were not real "heavy" Jet Aircraft pilots, but who actually had a hard time flying and controlling a single engine Cessna.

What are the probabilities/possibilities in light of the data and phenomenon, itself?

The question this all begs is - why such speed?

I could explain it from the hypothesis offered in this thread.

But it doesn't make a lot of sense within the context of the OS, even if you think it's possible that the plane could be successfully controlled and piloted in that manner, at that speed.

Why then not also question, skeptically, the OS on the basis of this data, along with a careful observation of the nature of the buildings' subsequent destruction (starting near the impact areas) with the plane impacts and fires representing the apparent causal mechanism?

Would an objective, analytical, scientifically minded, objective observer - not also have the capacity to examine all information and phenomenon within the context of an alternative explanatory hypothesis to that offered by the OS, according to the proper use of Occam's Razor, if in light of that data the OS narrative, can no longer be supported or believed, or guarded..?

What we're really examining here are physical historical data points, recorded when they actually happened as they happened, a record which has been preserved in perpetuity.

I therefore have faith that given a certain distance from the events themselves, that a greater level of scientific scrutiny and analysis will be applied to those events, which will render the OS to be utterly absurd and a blatant lie and murderous hoax of the worst kind.

Such an awareness will then place the pressure (air pressure) where it really should and ought to be applied, so that there might be hope for better future policy formation and integration (learning) even if only for the interest of the collective good and the public safety.

Best Regards,

NAM