Debunked: The Role of Aeroelastic Flutter in the Events of 9/11

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A point sometimes raised in 9/11 discussion is that the the planes, and in particular UA175, were flying above their maximum "safe" speed, with the claim being made that they would immediately experience flutter, and hence be uncontrollable, and quickly break apart. The implication being that the planes that impacted the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the field at Shanksville, were not stock planes, but were planes that have been modified in some way, or were entirely different types of plane in disguise - possibly even not the same planes that took off that morning, but some other planes that were craftily swapped in at some point in the flight.

While this seems like an incredible, even ridiculous theory, it's raised often enough that it's worth looking in detail into how flutter occurs, and at what speed, so we can see if this is in any way relevant to the events of 9/11.

What is the Claim?

The specific claim made by Pilots for 9/11 Truth is:
(From "SkyGate 9/11")
[bunk]Vd is a hard limit, meaning there is no additional margin of safety above Vd[/bunk]
As we will see, this is incorrect, and there is a FAA certification margin of safety of 20% above the Vd limit.

What is Flutter?

Flutter is a resonance effect where, at certain speeds and conditions, oscillations of parts of the plane are amplified by the passing air, and grow in amplitude. This can lead to loss of control and damage to the plane. Severe flutter can rip the wings or stabilizers off a plane. Here's what it looks like in simulation:
http://stanton.ice.put.poznan.pl/flutter-laboratory/


What is Vd (and Vne)?

All planes have a set of "V-speeds" specified by the manufacturer, and certified by extensive testing and analysis. The V-speeds are either specific speeds that are optimal for a particular purpose (such as Vglide, the best speed for a power-off gliding descent) or are high or low limits beyond which a particular operation should not be attempted (such as Vlo - the maximum speed you can fly with landing gear lowered).

For this discussion the most relevant V speeds are Vne (V Never Exceed) and Vd (V Dive). Vne is the speed that that pilot should never take the plane beyond. Vd is the speed beyond which structural problems are predicted to start to occur (or have been observed to start to occur, in which case it is denoted Vdf). Vne is less than Vd (usually around 90% of Vd), so for purposes of this discussion, Vd is the maximum "safe" structural speed of the aircraft.

What is Vd and the observed impact speed for UA175?

The fastest 9/11 plane, UA175, was a 767-200. Vd for a 767-200 is 420 KCAS below 17,854 feet, according to FAA certification data. (420 Knots Calibrated Air Speed, or 420*1.15 = 483 mph).

I - Model 767-200 (Approved July 30, 1982)
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 variationbetween these points.
VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
Content from External Source
The estimates of speed for UA175 range from 503 mph (visual analysis) to 590 mph (radar analysis).


At what speed would flutter become a problem?

Flutter is not something that simply happens at one particular speed. The onset and amplification of flutter depend upon a variety of factors, including the loading of the plane (in particular the fuel loading in the wings), and the turbulence of the atmosphere. Even then the flutter requires some initial oscillation (excitation) of the affected structure in order for it to start.

NASA has a very detailed document on the history of flutter testing, in which they discuss the problems of getting sufficient excitation to induce flutter. Solutions to this problem included flying around looking for areas of high turbulence, attaching small rockets to the wings, or having rotating weights inside the wings.
http://www.nasa-usa.de/centers/dryden/pdf/88390main_H-2077.pdf

Structural excitation is a necessary part of the flight flutter
testing methodology. Detection of impending aeroelastic
instabilities cannot be made without adequate
excitation. Adequate excitation provides energy to excite
all of the selected vibration modes with sufficient magnitudes
to accurately assess stability from the response data.

The Transavia PL12/T-400 airplane (ref. 16) clearly
demonstrated the importance of adequate excitation levels
in 1986. This airplane was excited on the initial flight tests
by control surface pulses and random atmospheric turbulence.
Flutter did not occur during the flight test. In a subsequent
flight, the airplane experienced violent
oscillations of the rudder and tail boom when it was flown
in rough weather conditions.
These weather conditions
provided higher levels of excitation than the levels
induced during the flight flutter test.
[...]
In the 1950’s, the United States learned that low excitation levels
tend to give a large scatter in the damping values estimated
from the response data. In addition, the estimated
values suggested lower aerodynamic damping than actually
existed. During flutter testing of the B-58 airplane
(ref. 17), it was found that a structural excitation level at
least three to four times higher than was obtained by random
atmospheric turbulence was necessary to provide an
acceptable level of excitation.
Content from External Source
So the onset of flutter is determined by a combination of speed and excitation, not simply speed alone. However as speed increases, the ability of the plane to dampen any excitation decreases, so the amount of excitation required to induce flutter will decrease. However we can't say for sure that flutter will occur at a certain speed. Just that it is increasingly likely to occur as speed increases.

At what speeds is Flutter NOT a problem?

If we can't tell at what exact speed flutter will occur, then perhaps we can find a speed below which it will not occur. We know it should not occur below Vd, but the CAR 4b.308, proposed in 1964, says:
http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ElectraWings/4b.308.pdf

§ 4b.308 Flutter, deformation. and vibration. Compliance with the following provisions
shall be shown by such calculations, resonance tests, or other tests as are found necessary
by the Administrator.

(a) Flutter prevention. The airplane shall be designed to be free from flutter of wing and
tail units, including all control and trim surfaces, and from divergence (i.e. unstable
structural distortion due to aerodynamic loading), at all speeds up to 1.2 VD.
A smaller
margin above VD shall be acceptable if the characteristics of the airplane (including the
effects of compressibility) render a speed of 1.2 VD unlikely to be achieved, and if it is
shown that a proper margin of damping exists at speed VD. In the absence of more
accurate data, the terminal velocity in a dive of 30 degrees to the horizontal shall be
acceptable as the maximum speed likely to be achieved. If concentrated balance weights
are used on control surfaces, their effectiveness and strength, including supporting
structure, shall be substantiated.

(b) Loss of control due to structural deformation. The airplane shall be designed to be
free from control reversal and from undue loss of longitudinal, lateral, and directional
stability and control as a result of structural deformation, including that of the control
surface covering, at all speeds up to the speed prescribed in paragraph (a)
of this section
for flutter prevention.
Content from External Source
And this was codified a FAR 25.629 in 1965:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...9DD00A6A3FBA4A088525667200503326?OpenDocument

(b) Flutter and divergence prevention. The dynamic evaluation of the airplane must include an investigation of the significant elastic, inertia, and aerodynamic forces associated with the rotations and displacements of the plane of the propeller. In addition the following apply:
(1) The airplane must be designed to be free from flutter and divergence (unstable structural distortion due to aerodynamic loading) at speeds up to 1.2 VD.
(2) A smaller margin above VD may be used if--
(i) The characteristics of the airplane (including the effects of compressibility) make a speed of 1.2 VD unlikely to be reached;
(ii) A proper margin of damping exists at VD; and
(iii) There is no large and rapid reduction in damping as VD is approached.
Content from External Source
And essentially the same applies in the regulations that applied from 1978 to 1992:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...1AF764F921FAD01C862568E900643105?OpenDocument
b) Flutter and divergence prevention. The dynamic evaluation of the airplane must include an investigation of the significant elastic, inertia, and aerodynamic forces associated with the rotations and displacements of the plane of the propeller. In addition, the following apply:
(1) The airplane must be designed to be free from flutter and divergence (unstable structural distortion due to aerodynamic loading) for all combinations of altitude and speed encompassed by the VD/MD versus altitude envelope enlarged at all points by an increase of 20 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude, except that Mach effects for Mach numbers greater than 1.0 need not be included when MD is less than 1.0 at all design altitudes and the following is established--
(i) A proper margin of damping exists at all speeds up to MD; and
(ii) There is no large and rapid reduction in damping as MD is approached.
Content from External Source
How does this apply to UA175?

Vd for a 767-200 is 420 KCAS/483mph, so 1.2 Vd is 504 KCAS/580 mph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175
The United Airlines Flight 175 aircraft was a Boeing 767-222 that had been built in 1983, registration number N612UA
Content from External Source
So, based on the above, we can say that a 767 should not experience flutter (or any loss of control) below 580 mph. And given that flutter requires additional excitation, and some initiation time, and that the very highest estimate for speed for US175 was 590mph, then it seems unlikely that flutter would have caused significant problems for the pilots of UA175, who were intent solely on crashing the plane into a building.

Some additional clarifications follow:

Does Vd vary with altitude?

Yes, however the Vd limit of 420 Knots is the Calibrated Airspeed (essentially the same as the indicated airspeed) , which is the same as the true airspeed at sea level. The FAA certification document says:


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
Content from External Source
Note that Vd is a certification speed, not an actual operating limit, so it does not show up in the 767 flight manual. However the lower speed Vmo does:
Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/210896551/BOEING-767-Airplane-Flight-Manual



closer in for clarity:



Notice the Vmo is a constant indicated airspeed below 26,000 feet. This means that the Vmo of a 767 is 360 knots at sea level. The same applies to Vd, meaning Vd of a 767 is 420 knots at sea level.

MPH vs. Knots, KTAS, KIAS, KCAS, and KEAS

The multiple ways of indicating the speed of a plane area source of confusion here. Firstly there MPH vs. knots. We are all familiar with MPH, and knots is simply nautical miles per hours. A nautical mile is 1.15 standard miles. So 1 knot is 1.15 mph. So 420 Knots i 420*1.15 = 483 mph.

Now with all the K...AS units, these are speeds measured in knots, however they are AIR SPEEDS, i.e the speed of the plane relative to the air it is moving though. If you imagine a plane flying through calm air at 300 knots, then it's moving over the ground at 300 knots. The ground speed is the same as the air speed. However if the plane is flying at the same airspeed into a 50 knot headwind, then while the airspeed is still 300 knots, the ground speed will only be 250 knots.

The airspeed mentioned above is the "true" airspeed, KTAS (Knots True Air Speed). Unfortunately there is no simple way of measuring this from on the plane.

KIAS is the Indicated Airspeed. This is the speed that the airspeed indicator will show. This is roughly accurate at sea level, but at higher altitudes will show a lower number due to reduced air pressure.

KCAS is Calibrated Airspeed. This can be a little confusing, KIAS varies by plane, KCAS is essentially the KIAS for a hypothetical perfect airspeed indicator. So to convert KIAS to KCAS we are correcting for instrument error and variations in temperature. Here's an example conversion chart showing the corrections are fairly small.

For most practical purposes here KIAS and KCAS can be considered to be the same.

KEAS is the Equivalent Airspeed. Wikipedia describes it as "Equivalent airspeed (EAS) is the airspeed at sea level in the International Standard Atmosphere at which the dynamic pressure is the same as the dynamic pressure at the true airspeed (TAS) and altitude at which the aircraft is flying.[1][2] In low-speed flight, it is the speed which would be shown by an airspeed indicator with zero error.[3] It is useful for predicting aircraft handling, aerodynamic loads, stalling etc."

The important thing to remember in the context of this discussion (planes flying into buildings near sea level) is that all these values are essentially the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_(unit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_indicator
 

Attachments

  • A1NM Rev 26.pdf
    48.6 KB · Views: 715
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
If VD is dive speed , VNO never exceed speed, what's VMO and what's VG?

Also the constant mixing of airspeed in miles per hour with knots tends to make threads on this subject a blur of incomprehensible specialised nitpicking. (I'm referring to the other thread, this one is quite clear.)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If VD is dive speed , VNO never exceed speed, what's VMO and what's VG?

CS 25.1505 Maximum operating limit
speed
The maximum operating limit speed (VMO/MMO, airspeed or Mach number, whichever is critical at a particular altitude) is a speed that may not be
deliberately exceeded in any regime of flight (climb, cruise, or descent), unless a higher speed is authorised for flight test or pilot training
operations. VMO/MMO must be established so that it is not greater than the design cruising speed VC and so that it is sufficiently below VD/MD or VDF/MDF,to make it highly improbable that the latter speeds will be inadvertently exceeded in operations. The speed margin between VMO/MMO and VD/MD or VDF/MDF may not be less than that determined under
CS 25.335(b) or found necessary during the flight tests conducted under CS 25.253.

Content from External Source
i.e. the speed you should normally never go faster than in regular operations.

VG is the glide speed. Engines off. Low speed. designed to maximize time in air and distance. Not relevant here.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
VG is the glide speed. Engines off. Low speed. designed to maximize time in air and distance. Not relevant here.
So in the context of the title
EasyJet 737 incident debunks Pilot for 9/11 truth VG diagram video
it's a glide diagram?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So in the context of the title
EasyJet 737 incident debunks Pilot for 9/11 truth VG diagram video
it's a glide diagram?

No, that's a V-G diagram. Velocity (speed) against G-force. Also sometimes called a V-n diagram. It shows the range of speeds and g-forces that are considered safe.

I'm going to edit that tread title for clarity.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
In a diagram/graph, the name would refer to each axis, whereas in the speed designation the second letter is a subscript and is an indication of the specific flight condition.
Its
Vd​. As opposed to Vd
 

BlindIdiots

Member
False, the U.S does not use aircraft regulations created in 1964 in 2014

The parts of CAR 4b.308 were incorporated into 14 CFR 25.629 (which is the same as FAR 25.629) in November 1964 http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=4&LLID=7&LLTypeID=10

During this same period, 14 CFR part 25 was codified, and 14 CFR 25.629 was adopted in November, 1964, as part of the original publication of part 25. 25.629 adopted the requirements of CAR 4b.308, and also added a more specific speed envelope inside which an airplane was required to be free from flutter. In addition, 25.629 introduced fail-safe criteria, and required consideration of failures of structural elements for which fail-safe criteria/analyses had been applied. The rule further linked these criteria to fail-safe criteria in 14 CFR 25.571(c).
Content from External Source
What happened to CFR 25.629 then?

It was reformed, and the parts that say

The airplane shall be designed to be free from flutter of wing and
tail units, including all control and trim surfaces, and from divergence (i.e. unstable
structural distortion due to aerodynamic loading), at all speeds up to 1.2 VD.

and

Loss of control due to structural deformation. The airplane shall be designed to be
free from control reversal and from undue loss of longitudinal, lateral, and directional
stability and control as a result of structural deformation, including that of the control
surface covering, at all speeds up to the speed prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section
for flutter prevention.

Were removed, so that regulation does not apply anymore.

You can view the current CFR 25.629 here : http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5;node=14:1.0.1.3.11#14:1.0.1.3.11.4.172.12

As you can see, there is no longer any mention of the above.

I would remove the "debunked" label from the title now if I were you, Mick.
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
14 CFR 25.571(c) that was posted above. Excerpts:

Fail.jpg

AND:

CFR.jpg

(iii) -- At speed VD​ the airframe must withstand wind gusts of up to 15 fps when below 20,000 feet. What kind of wind gusts and or turbulence was there on 9/11 affecting UAL 175?
 

BlindIdiots

Member
At speed VD the airframe must withstand wind gusts of up to 15 fps when below 20,000 feet. What kind of wind gusts and or turbulence was there on 9/11 affecting UAL 175?

I was referring to the outdated regulation Mick posted.

Wind gusts or Turbulence have nothing to do with flying at 500 knots at sea level.

But I will debate 9/11 aircraft with you on pilotsfor911truth.org, stop being so afraid of that site and come here.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So it's just 1.15 Vd, not 1.20?


§25.629 Aeroelastic stability requirements.
(a) General. The aeroelastic stability evaluations required under this section include flutter, divergence, control reversal and any undue loss of stability and control as a result of structural deformation. The aeroelastic evaluation must include whirl modes associated with any propeller or rotating device that contributes significant dynamic forces. Compliance with this section must be shown by analyses, wind tunnel tests, ground vibration tests, flight tests, or other means found necessary by the Administrator.

(b) Aeroelastic stability envelopes. The airplane must be designed to be free from aeroelastic instability for all configurations and design conditions within the aeroelastic stability envelopes as follows:

(1) For normal conditions without failures, malfunctions, or adverse conditions, all combinations of altitudes and speeds encompassed by the VD/MD versus altitude envelope enlarged at all points by an increase of 15 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude. In addition, a proper margin of stability must exist at all speeds up to VD/MD and, there must be no large and rapid reduction in stability as VD/MD is approached. The enlarged envelope may be limited to Mach 1.0 when MD is less than 1.0 at all design altitudes, and


Content from External Source
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Wind gusts or Turbulence have nothing to do with flying at 500 knots at sea level.
But I will debate 9/11 aircraft with you on pilotsfor911truth.org

This thread is already specific (tangentially related) to the 9/11 events.

And, the point that I made and that was ignored was exactly the fact that on 9/11 the air was particularly smooth. Therefore the claims made at the site "pilotsfor911truth" are moot. There is nothing to "debate".
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This thread is specific to flutter - with perhaps a general extension to aeroelastic stability. Please keep it to that.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
This thread is specific to flutter - with perhaps a general extension to aeroelastic stability. Please keep it to that.

The concept of flutter involves outside forces (such as wind gusts, etc) acting on an airframe in order to induce. Is this not covered in the OP?

The onset and amplification of flutter depend upon a variety of factors, including the loading of the plane (in particular the fuel loading in the wings), and the turbulence of the atmosphere. Even then the flutter requires some initial oscillation (excitation) of the affected structure in order for it to start.

Am I mistaken here?

(Color text altered by me)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sorry, I was referring to the discussion of PF9 as being off topic.

Any argument against the requirements of being flutter free up to 1.15 Vd? If not, then I'll update the OP. It changes the numbers from:

Vd for a 767-200 is 420 KCAS/483mph, so 1.2 Vd is 504 KCAS/580 mph.

to

Vd for a 767-200 is 420 KCAS/483mph, so 1.15 Vd is 483 KCAS/555 mph.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
False, the U.S does not use aircraft regulations created in 1964 in 2014

The parts of CAR 4b.308 were incorporated into 14 CFR 25.629 (which is the same as FAR 25.629) in November 1964 http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=4&LLID=7&LLTypeID=10

During this same period, 14 CFR part 25 was codified, and 14 CFR 25.629 was adopted in November, 1964, as part of the original publication of part 25. 25.629 adopted the requirements of CAR 4b.308, and also added a more specific speed envelope inside which an airplane was required to be free from flutter. In addition, 25.629 introduced fail-safe criteria, and required consideration of failures of structural elements for which fail-safe criteria/analyses had been applied. The rule further linked these criteria to fail-safe criteria in 14 CFR 25.571(c).
Content from External Source
What happened to CFR 25.629 then?

It was reformed, and the parts that say



and



Were removed, so that regulation does not apply anymore.

You can view the current CFR 25.629 here : http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5;node=14:1.0.1.3.11#14:1.0.1.3.11.4.172.12

As you can see, there is no longer any mention of the above.

I would remove the "debunked" label from the title now if I were you, Mick.
So the new regs would have applied to aircraft being designed/tested after the revision.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
What I was getting at was that it seemed odd to retroactively apply new regulations to aircraft already in service, and that I have expected that to not be the case.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Any argument against the requirements of being flutter free up to 1.15 Vd?

No. That seems to have been one of the pertinent changes in the CFR, relaxing the "1.2 VD​" requirement. I'd venture to say that modern designs (i.e. the B757, B767) far exceed the "minimums" in regards to flutter onset probability. Personal experience tells me that they both have very robust airframes.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Looks like it was 20% through 1990.

To clarify, an airplane's "VD​" speed plus 20% (same as 1.2 X VD​). Through 1990 means that when the B757/767 family of airplanes were in the design stages (circa late 1970s, as they were introduced in the early 1980s), there were sufficient reasons for the airframe manufacturer (Boeing) to indeed build a very robust product, and one that had a tendency to aerodynamic flutter designed out of it.

Again, this disputes the various claims seen in myriad "9/11 conspiracy" sites.

AND, to add....even if we only use a figure of 15% (as cited in recent CFR regulations)...this is minimally different. The same facts remain (the very strong and above "minimum" standards that are built into modern, circa 1980 and forward, Boeing designs).

Coupled with the other evidences we've seen of earlier Boeing airframes that endured stresses far outside the flight test regime, and still survived?

The evidence is conclusive to call the claim that the airplanes seen on 9/11 were "not" as already proven? (i.e. regularly scheduled airliners). Debunked.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
To clarify, an airplane's "VD​" speed plus 20% (same as 1.2 X VD​). Through 1990 means that when the B757/767 family of airplanes were in the design stages (circa late 1970s, as they were introduced in the early 1980s), there were sufficient reasons for the airframe manufacturer (Boeing) to indeed build a very robust product, and one that had a tendency to aerodynamic flutter designed out of it.

Again, this disputes the various claims seen in myriad "9/11 conspiracy" sites.

AND, to add....even if we only use a figure of 15% (as cited in recent CFR regulations)...this is minimally different. The same facts remain (the very strong and above "minimum" standards that are built into modern, circa 1980 and forward, Boeing designs).

Coupled with the other evidences we've seen of earlier Boeing airframes that endured stresses far outside the flight test regime, and still survived?

The evidence is conclusive to call the claim that the airplanes seen on 9/11 were "not" as already proven? (i.e. regularly scheduled airliners). Debunked.
plus everything ive read says AT LEAST 15%. Don't know if that matters.
bold mine.

The airplane
flutter speed must be at least 15% higher than the operating
flight envelope and can not be tested directly.
http://sem-proceedings.com/21i/sem.org-IMAC-XXI-Conf-s15p06-Flight-Flutter-Testing-Transport-Aircraft-In-flight-Modal-Analysis.pdf
Content from External Source
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
This is my favourite bit.

From the link in
Final Rule Actions:
Final Rule. Docket No. 24344; Issued on 06/26/90.
Content from External Source
which I was scanning in the vain hope that a discussion of the change to the relevant VD figures would magically leap out from the dense text.

One commenter erroneously believes that A1 and A2 should be at VA passing through Point A because VA is defined in Sec. 25.33S(c) as not less than Vs1 N. The maneuvering envelope was revised in part 4b of the Civil Air Regulations (CAR) (the predecessor of part 25 of the FAR) in 1962 to reflect the actual CN MAX curve. The calculation of VA=VS1N assumes a constant value of CNMAX from VS1 to VA. The actual CNMAX usually varies due to compressibility effects. Point A is the intersection of the actual CNMAX curve with the maneuvering load factor line. Points A1 and A2 are, therefore, correctly defined in Sec. 25.333.
Content from External Source
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
This is my favourite bit.

From the link in
Final Rule Actions:
Final Rule. Docket No. 24344; Issued on 06/26/90.
Content from External Source
which I was scanning in the vain hope that a discussion of the change to the relevant VD figures would magically leap out from the dense text.

One commenter erroneously believes that A1 and A2 should be at VA passing through Point A because VA is defined in Sec. 25.33S(c) as not less than Vs1 N. The maneuvering envelope was revised in part 4b of the Civil Air Regulations (CAR) (the predecessor of part 25 of the FAR) in 1962 to reflect the actual CN MAX curve. The calculation of VA=VS1N assumes a constant value of CNMAX from VS1 to VA. The actual CNMAX usually varies due to compressibility effects. Point A is the intersection of the actual CNMAX curve with the maneuvering load factor line. Points A1 and A2 are, therefore, correctly defined in Sec. 25.333.
Content from External Source
ah. o_O
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
This is my favourite bit.

From the link in
Final Rule Actions:
Final Rule. Docket No. 24344; Issued on 06/26/90.
Content from External Source
which I was scanning in the vain hope that a discussion of the change to the relevant VD figures would magically leap out from the dense text.

One commenter erroneously believes that A1 and A2 should be at VA passing through Point A because VA is defined in Sec. 25.33S(c) as not less than Vs1 N. The maneuvering envelope was revised in part 4b of the Civil Air Regulations (CAR) (the predecessor of part 25 of the FAR) in 1962 to reflect the actual CN MAX curve. The calculation of VA=VS1N assumes a constant value of CNMAX from VS1 to VA. The actual CNMAX usually varies due to compressibility effects. Point A is the intersection of the actual CNMAX curve with the maneuvering load factor line. Points A1 and A2 are, therefore, correctly defined in Sec. 25.333.
Content from External Source
Post #7 redux
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The history of 25.629:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...enView&Start=1&Count=200&Expand=11.138#11.138 (http://archive.today/0H5Eo)


^Sec. 25.629
  • Flutter, deformation, and fail-safe criteria. 02/01/1965^
  • Flutter, deformation, and fail-safe criteria.25-23 05/08/1970^
  • Flutter, deformation, and fail-safe criteria.25-45 12/01/1978^
  • Flutter, deformation, and fail-safe criteria.25-46 12/02/1978^
  • Flutter, deformation, and fail-safe criteria.25-72 08/20/1990^
  • [Aeroelastic stability requirements.]25-77 07/29/1992^
Content from External Source
1965:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...9DD00A6A3FBA4A088525667200503326?OpenDocument (http://archive.today/B7qfJ)
(b) Flutter and divergence prevention. The dynamic evaluation of the airplane must include an investigation of the significant elastic, inertia, and aerodynamic forces associated with the rotations and displacements of the plane of the propeller. In addition the following apply:
(1) The airplane must be designed to be free from flutter and divergence (unstable structural distortion due to aerodynamic loading) at speeds up to 1.2 VD.
(2) A smaller margin above VD may be used if--
(i) The characteristics of the airplane (including the effects of compressibility) make a speed of 1.2 VD unlikely to be reached;
(ii) A proper margin of damping exists at VD; and
(iii) There is no large and rapid reduction in damping as VD is approached.
Content from External Source
1978:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...1AF764F921FAD01C862568E900643105?OpenDocument (http://archive.today/dwKQ4)
b) Flutter and divergence prevention. The dynamic evaluation of the airplane must include an investigation of the significant elastic, inertia, and aerodynamic forces associated with the rotations and displacements of the plane of the propeller. In addition, the following apply:
(1) The airplane must be designed to be free from flutter and divergence (unstable structural distortion due to aerodynamic loading) for all combinations of altitude and speed encompassed by the VD/MD versus altitude envelope enlarged at all points by an increase of 20 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude, except that Mach effects for Mach numbers greater than 1.0 need not be included when MD is less than 1.0 at all design altitudes and the following is established--
(i) A proper margin of damping exists at all speeds up to MD; and
(ii) There is no large and rapid reduction in damping as MD is approached.
Content from External Source
1990:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...12E1EB546266FC538525667200503A50?OpenDocument (http://archive.today/jQfRq)
(b) Flutter and divergence prevention. The dynamic evaluation of the airplane must include an investigation of the significant elastic, inertia, and aerodynamic forces associated with the rotations and displacements of the plane of the propeller. In addition, the following apply:
[(1) The airplane must be designed to be free from flutter and divergence (unstable structural distortion due to aerodynamic loading) for all combinations of altitude and speed encompassed by the VD/MD versus altitude envelope enlarged at all points by an increase of 20 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude, except that the envelope may be limited to a maximum Mach number of 1.0 when M is less than 1.0 at all design altitudes and the following is established--]
(i) A proper margin of damping exists at all speeds up to MD; and
(ii) There is no large and rapid reduction in damping as MD is approached.
Content from External Source
1992 (current regulations)
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...91070D90B083322F8525667200503C26?OpenDocument (http://archive.today/qlp3K)
(1) For normal conditions without failures, malfunctions, or adverse conditions, all combinations of altitudes and speeds encompassed by the VD/MD versus altitude envelope enlarged at all points by an increase of 15 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude. In addition, a proper margin of stability must exist at all speeds up to VD/MD and, there must be no large and rapid reduction in stability as VD/MD is approached. The enlarged envelope may be limited to Mach 1.0 when MD is less than 1.0 at all design altitudes, and
Content from External Source
Since the 767 began development in 1972 (production started in 1978, and the first 767 entered service in 1981), the initial design would have been done with the 1965 regulations in mind. And the regulations were only relaxed from 1.2Vd to 1.15Vd in 1992. Hence I feel the OP is still accurate.
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Since the 767 began development in 1972 (production started in 1978, and the first 767 entered service in 1981), the initial design would have been done with the 1965 regulations in mind. And the regulations were only relaxed from 1.2Vd to 1.15Vd in 1992. Hence I feel the OP is still accurate.

Great sourcing, and quite conclusive.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
I was referring to the outdated regulation Mick posted.

Wind gusts or Turbulence have nothing to do with flying at 500 knots at sea level.

But I will debate 9/11 aircraft with you on pilotsfor911truth.org, stop being so afraid of that site and come here.
Wind gusts and turbulence would have a lot to do with flying at 500 knots at sea level - a big reason why low level flights for large USAF aircraft were studied and limited because of airframe fatigue; a big reason Vmo is 350 for large aircraft low, yet we fly at 500 high.
The Vg diagram pilot for truth have is fake, made up using graphs from other planes. A real Vg diagram is good at one weight, one altitude, and pilots for truth Vg diagram was made up by Balsamo to fool people who don't understand a Vg diagram.
I flew over Vmo, the aircraft did fine. The only damage I have seen on a Boeing jet flying over Vmo, was torn skin on some Al honeycomb under the leading edge.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Mick,

Don't you find it curious that "MikeC" and "TWCobra" have not endorsed or agreed to what you have posted in this thread? And yet people like "weedwhacker" and "Keith Beachy" have?

I'll give you a hint....

"in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude"

Anytime you wish to actually learn from real and verified pilots on the matter, instead of interpreting the FAR's based on your bias... feel free to make a post at the P4T forum and become educated.

Hmmm... will you approve this post?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick,

Don't you find it curious that "MikeC" and "TWCobra" have not endorsed or agreed to what you have posted in this thread? And yet people like "weedwhacker" and "Keith Beachy" have?

I'll give you a hint....

"in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude"

Anytime you wish to actually learn from real and verified pilots on the matter, instead of interpreting the FAR's based on your bias... feel free to make a post at the P4T forum and become educated.

Hmmm... will you approve this post?

Perhaps you could just explain your objection, with numbers?
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
Perhaps you could just explain your objection, with numbers?
You posted enough to debunk the pilot for truth nonsense. Balsamo posts the fake Vg diagram he photo-shopped. It has the wrong curves, no altitude, no gross weight, only BS. Boeing does not publish a speed of structural failure. You posted real definitions, the right stuff which aircraft are designed to. What Balsamo posts is hearsay, what some journalists makes up about Vd, and other quote mined nonsense to drum up business for the "offer no theory" wild claims to fools gullible kids and conspiracy theorists. How many more years will Balsamo use his fake Vg diagram.
Your did research the pilot for truth audience is unable to comprehend. Funny seeing Balsamo's buddy make up nonsense about it.
EA990 was 50 knots over Vd of 420 KCAS; Balsamo switches between KEAS and KCAS to make the numbers look better. It involves math, and usually 911 truth is not very good at math.
Your research gets to the heart of high performance jets and airliner, whereas Balsamo has his fake Vg diagram. His generic Vg diagram hoax works with his audience pilots for truth, where Balsamo changes users' avatars and names to make weak personal attacks.
You know you have the right stuff when Balsamo goes on the personal attack mode, and claims to have verified pilots at pilots for truth; Lear comes to mind, but he sees aliens, and knows we have based on the dark side of the moon - a pilot for truth expert, good for many a quote-mining bonanza of woo on 911 issues. Yes, we can all go to FAA, plug in the names and we see our type ratings, and find I have an ATP, and Balsamo does not. https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/
Pilots for truth have less than 0.1 percent of all pilots supporting the fake Vg diagram claims of structural failure. I find it ironic the pilot for truth followers and leaders make note that some planes have failed inside the flight envelope, thinking full scale rudder reversal and other mishap problems are really in the envelope of normal flight. The Vg diagram is not about misuse of the controls or malfunctions, it is about aerodynamics, and what a plane can do.
What does Boeing say about flight over Vmo?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Oystein Debunked: Gibraltar cancels Christmas Coronavirus COVID-19 5
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top