EasyJet 737 incident debunks Pilot for 9/11 truth V-G diagram video

Svartbjørn

Senior Member
This thread seem to be going round in circles. It seems incredibly clear to me that the high speeds do not lead to certain immediate failure. All this pointing at areas on diagrams seems deliberately misleading.

Are there actually open questions here? Could they be excised into new threads?
I agree with ya Mick.. Im asking about the speeds because Im trying to figure out whether or not blind's found new evidence to support that the planes were, or were not what hit the towers.. were or were not actually travelling at speeds that could cause structural failure.. and if so, to point it out. More of a morbid curiosity given how passionate and fervent he's been about the topic since his arrival. Ive not seen a straight answer come out as of yet about anything.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
Maybe if we just get back to debating the OP? That the Egyptian Airlines 767, according to the NTSB report, did not break up at Vd+5 as the P4T video states.

The problem here is that we are debating with a person, Rob Balsamo, who cannot admit that error as admitting an error on a DVD he profits from has obvious problems for him.

Rob, the NTSB report is succunct in this. There is no argument. To claim otherwise is to claim some knowledge the NTSB doesn't have. If you have that knowledge lets see it, otherwise this is pointless.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Maybe if we just get back to debating the OP? That the Egyptian Airlines 767, according to the NTSB report, did not break up at Vd+5 as the P4T video states.
Still true, as we've come circling back to it.

Odd bit of deja vu' for me, though....since I can recall this same assertion by the 'P4T' back some years ago. 2010 (?) 2011. 2012.
(I may have missed a few years, I'm going from memory, here).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Maybe if we just get back to debating the OP? That the Egyptian Airlines 767, according to the NTSB report, did not break up at Vd+5 as the P4T video states.

The problem here is that we are debating with a person, Rob Balsamo, who cannot admit that error as admitting an error on a DVD he profits from has obvious problems for him.

Rob, the NTSB report is succunct in this. There is no argument. To claim otherwise is to claim some knowledge the NTSB doesn't have. If you have that knowledge lets see it, otherwise this is pointless.
Agreed. Failing to address this error is disingenuous.

Rob (and any other P4T members), I will not allow any more digressions until you address this specific point. Until you have done so, any material you post that is not related to this point will be deleted. If you are unable to admit where you are wrong, or to directly address criticism, then there is no point in continuing to engage you.
 

BlindIdiots

Member
Maybe if we just get back to debating the OP? That the Egyptian Airlines 767, according to the NTSB report, did not break up at Vd+5 as the P4T video states.
The problem here is that we are debating with a person, Rob Balsamo, who cannot admit that error as admitting an error on a DVD he profits from has obvious problems for him.
Rob, the NTSB report is succunct in this. There is no argument. To claim otherwise is to claim some knowledge the NTSB doesn't have. If you have that knowledge lets see it, otherwise this is pointless.
Agreed. Failing to address this error is disingenuous.
Rob (and any other P4T members), I will not allow any more digressions until you address this specific point. Until you have done so, any material you post that is not related to this point will be deleted. If you are unable to admit where you are wrong, or to directly address criticism, then there is no point in continuing to engage you.

any material you post that is not related to this point will be deleted
I am not the only one who has posted material not related to the topic.

I am also not Rob Balsamo, stop accusing me of that. I was going to address all the arguments that were posted to me earlier, from Jazzy and others, but you have said that you will not allow discussion of that, which is fair.
And I did address the OP, TWCobra either did not see it or ignored it. This was my post.

"The fact is that when P4T first did their analysis,the NTSB reported the "peak speed" as .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. 0.99 Mach at 22,000 feet is 425 KEAS.
They used this peak speed because it is a fact that the flight suffered structural failure sometime before water impact, using any slower speed than the "peak speed" would be moot
Later, Rob retrieved the CSV files of the event which showed a slightly higher speed at a lower altitude,which turned out to be Vd+23

You are also wrong regarding power loss due to engine cut-off as all systems were powered after the engines were placed into the cut-off position.

You also ignore that it is only an 18 knot difference.


The problem here is that we are debating with a person, Rob Balsamo, who cannot admit that error as admitting an error on a DVD he profits from has obvious problems for him.
False, Rob has since released this VD diagram, addressing his error. It is located here (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22665&st=40)

I know he did not remove the VD+5 part of it, but he did include the VD+23 part, which indeed is the speed at which the aircraft experienced structural failure according to the CSV file.

Now, WeedWhacker,Jazzy, NoParty, JRBids and Svartbjorn, because it is clear that I cannot address the arguments you have made against my last post, you are invited to a debate in this thread. TWCobra is invited as well.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22665&st=20

You will notice that I (Yost) and Rob Balsamo are there, Rob was helping me, I admit it. But if all or any of you refuse to debate here, it means that you are afraid of having your arguments addressed, period. You would rather spend time here, in the company of other "skeptics".

Do not tell me "oh, pilotsfor911truth is not worth arguing with" or "oh, Rob Balsamo bans people who don't agree with him" ,that is a refusal to argue.

When you are in that thread you may argue anything you wish. Such as the speeds of the aircraft on 9/11, the meaning of Structural failure, the speed at which a 767/757 experiences structural failure,which is 614 knots at sea level according to Jazzy, whom I, and Rob perhaps, are quite interested in arguing with.

So please let us continue the debate in the thread mentioned above, I await your arrival.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
So please let us continue the debate in the thread mentioned above, I await your arrival.
You can continue this discussion on Metabunk just not on this thread. Pick one point and use an existing thread or (if not covered elsewhere) start a new thread. Please read the posting guidelines. Also, Mick in an above post asked you (or Rob or whoever) to admit to or counter the stated error that is the basis for this thread. Are you going to do that?
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I know he did not remove the VD+5 part of it, but he did include the VD+23 part, which indeed is the speed at which the aircraft experienced structural failure according to the CSV file.
Sorry, but can you you point to this CSV file, and its source? And how "loss of control/structural failure" was determined? I looked though the thread, but did not see it.
 

BlindIdiots

Member
I know he did not remove the VD+5 part of it, but he did include the VD+23 part, which indeed is the speed at which the aircraft experienced structural failure according to the CSV file.
Sorry, but can you you point to this CSV file, and its source? And how "loss of control/structural failure" was determined? I looked though the thread, but did not see it.
It was recieved via FOIA by Rob Balsamo link: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=286 (Right click- save as)

Also, from the NTSB report

"It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage
separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located
in the western debris field about 1,200 feet from the eastern debris field."

"Sonar mapping of the wreckage site depicted two distinct underwater debris fields,
which were identified by recovery personnel and investigators as the western and eastern
debris fields. These debris fields were about 366 meters (1,200 feet) apart from center
point to center point. The western debris field, which was estimated to be 62 meters by
66 meters and was centered about 40° 20’ 57" north latitude, 69° 45’ 40" west longitude,
contained mainly parts associated with the left engine and various other small pieces of
wreckage (including portions of two wing panels, fuselage skin, horizontal stabilizer skin,
and the majority of the nose landing gear assembly). The eastern debris field, which was
estimated to be 83 meters by 73 meters and was centered about 40° 20’ 51" north latitude,
69° 45’ 24" west longitude, contained the bulk of the airplane’s fuselage, wings,
empennage (including the outboard tips of the right and left elevators and all recovered
elevator PCAs), right engine, main landing gear, and flight recorders." Source - http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2002/aab0201.pdf


We know it experienced structural failure because Sonar mapping of the wreckage site depicted two distinct underwater debris fields.

Note that NTSB speculates loss of power of FDR and CVR due to the engines being shut down, but this does not make sense. Because 767/757's are equppied with Hydraulic Driven Generators (HDG's).

From smartcockpit.com



Note that the HDG's start automatically in case of power loss from both AC Busses, which should have powered the FDR and CVR.

Therefore it can be concluded that they failed due to structural failure.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm sorry, but where in the NTSB report and/or the data do you get that the left engine separation occurred at the peak speed, and was only due to that excessive speed? The NTSB paragraph you quoted above seems a little out of context. Here in full:
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2002/aab0201.pdf
How does the above tally with the spreadsheet? (and your link does not work unless logged in, perhaps you could upload it here?)
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Note that NTSB speculates loss of power of FDR and CVR due to the engines being shut down, but this does not make sense. Because 767/757's are equppied with Hydraulic Driven Generators (HDG's).
The HDG requires hydraulic pressure to operate. It operates from the CENTER hydraulic system. The CTR system is electric pumps only. Therefore, no engines, no IDGs, no power to the electric CTR hydraulic pumps. (Presuming the APU is not on).

The RAT will provide pressure to the CTR hydraulics. Presuming the system sensed the N2 in both engines being too low, and the RAT automatically deployed.

Because 767/757's are equppied with Hydraulic Driven Generators (HDG's).
Not all are (of course, for Egypt Air 990, this was the case, as it was an 'ER').
 
Last edited:

BlindIdiots

Member
I'm sorry, but where in the NTSB report and/or the data do you get that the left engine separation occurred at the peak speed, and was only due to that excessive speed? The NTSB paragraph you quoted above seems a little out of context. Here in full:
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2002/aab0201.pdf
Content from external source
The results of the Safety Board's examination of CVR, FDR, radar, airplane
maintenance history, wreckage, trajectory study, and debris field information were not
consistent with any portion of the airplane (including any part of the longitudinal flight
controls) separating throughout the initial dive and subsequent climb to about 25,000 feet
mean sea level (msl). It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage
separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located
in the western debris field about 1,200 feet from the eastern debris field. Although no
radar or FDR data indicated exactly when (at what altitude) the separation occurred, on the
basis of aerodynamic evidence and the proximity of the two debris fields, it is apparent
that the airplane remained intact until sometime during its final descent. Further, it is
apparent that while the recorders were operating, both elevator surfaces were intact,
attached to the airplane, and placed in the positions recorded by the FDR data and that the
elevator movements were driving the airplane pitch motion, and all associated recorded
parameters changed accordingly.
How does the above tally with the spreadsheet? (and your link does not work unless logged in, perhaps you could upload it here?)
Link to FDR file is attached below

The reason peak speed was used in the analysis, was because using any speed slower than it would be moot.
The time between "peak speed" and end of FDR recording is 16 seconds. This is why "peak speed" was used in the analysis.
The NTSB has not shown in their analysis what specifically caused the aircraft to lose it's left engine though they did say this in the report


There is much evidence from the report and CVR data that it was due to structural failure.

On page 118 of the NTSB report, you will find the Egyptian response to the NTSB investigation. You can read the reasons they were not satisfied with it and why they do not support the NTSB's conclusions.

Also, you can read below (from the report) that the Egyptian Team continually requested that the NTSB and

Boeing perform wind tunnel tests on the Boeing 767 flight control systems at the same speeds
experienced by Flight 990 -- up to .99 Mach. However the requests were denied. The Egyptian Team tried to investigate the structural failure of the aircraft, though the NTSB was not interested.

The HDG requires hydraulic pressure to operate. It operates from the CENTER hydraulic system. The CTR system is electric pumps only. Therefore, no engines, no IDGs, no power to the electric CTR hydraulic pumps. (Presuming the APU is not on).
The RAT will provide pressure to the CTR hydraulics. Presuming the system sensed the N2 in both engines being too low, and the RAT automatically deployed.
False, all systems were powered after the engines were placed into the 'cut-off' position. The FDR data shows that all 3 HYD systems were indicating normal pressure and never indicated low pressure(Indicating they were functioning normally). The HYD system then suddenly stopped recording (along with all the other FDR data) while it was at Normal pressure.. further indicating in flight structural failure.

Another error with the NTSB report is that they admit that the radar used to determine the second climb and dive(which apparently happened after the aircraft experienced 443 KEAS or VD+23) is subject to potentially large errors.

"Seven primary radar returns from the airplane were recorded during the second
dive; the altitude estimates from these returns are subject to potentially large errors, which
introduces significant uncertainty into the performance calculations during the second
dive."


I know that the above only says potentially large errors for the second dive and not the climb. However, it is also for the climb, as the ATC Transponder stopped working before the second climb, and the same unreliable radar was used for both the second climb and dive.

The same radar used for the above analysis is the same radar which shows:

"AA77" at nearly 60,000 feet at some points along it's flight path

and recently

45,000 feet for "MH370" (the lost Malaysia flight), which now they are concluding it never climbed that high.

The difference between Mode C returns and long range radar altitudes based on a primary target is significant and cannot be relied upon scientifically. Therefore it is quite possible that the second climb and dive never happened.

This is another reason the Egyptian Investigators were dissatisfied with the NTSB analysis.

And structural failure appears to be pretty much what happened based on lat/long data....



It is interesting to note that the last lat/long is nearly 5 miles from the previous lat/long.... and according to the FDR data, only 1 second elapsed between those data points.

To summarize, the conclusion for EA990 suffering structural failure at VD+23 is based on the following

The time between the recorded "peak speed" of 443 knots and the end of the FDR recording, which is 16 seconds.

All 3 HYD systems indicating Normal pressure throughout the flight and suddenly stop recording.

The 5 mile range of the last recorded location of the aircraft by radar and the two debris fields.

The NTSB saying in the report that "It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located in the western debris field about 1,200 feet from the eastern debris field."

I will now address some of TWCobra's claims made earlier in this thread.

The report unequivocally states that there is no evidence that EA990 suffered any structural failure in the first dive; where it reached an EAS of 443 Knots. This come directly from the CSV data supplied directly to me from Robert Balsamo which I include below. The relevant data point is at Cell number 15774 and clearly shows the aircraft at 17152 feet flying at 463 K Calibrated airspeed and pulling 2.17G.
The aircraft at 17152 feet flying at 463 K Calibrated airspeed and pulling 2.17G occurred 5 seconds prior to the end of the FDR recording. "Peak Speed" occurs at 16 seconds prior to the end of FDR recording. It is quite possible the airplane was experiencing in flight structural failure from the "peak speed" all through the dive, and as it entered thicker air below, the structure failed, which caused the FDR to stop recording.

Remember, the "second" climb and dive is "subject to potentially large errors, which introduces significant uncertainty into the performance calculations".

Robert, rather quixotically, claims that the radar data that saw the aircraft climbing to 25,000 feet after the first dive could have an altitude error and that they were tracking "wreckage". I conceded the possible altitude error, however the four radar stations tracked the "wreckage" record the primary radar trace altering course by 60 degrees before commencing the second terminal dive. This course changed lead directly to the position of the debris field.
Robert has never addressed this either.
Completely and utterly false, you are flat out lying when you say this, period. (by the way, what is your source for this claim.)

The following images are from the Reddit thread on which Rob and TWCobra debated: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/...n_evidence_that_the_south_tower_plane/cfjshw0

You will see that Robert did in fact address this argument.

TWCobra's post

Untitled55845.png

Rob's post

Untitled4545.png

In text, just because I want to make this crystal clear

I suggest that everyone here look through the Reddit thread linked above, and you will see that TWCobra never once addressed what Rob stated above, all he did was restate his argument.

So, TWCobra, it is not Robert who did not address your argument, it was you and only you. The only thing you can do now is apologize, because you were caught in a lie.
 

Attachments

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The reason peak speed was used in the analysis, was because using any speed slower than it would be moot.
Really? Surely the key points would be when the most stress is put on the airframe or control surfaces, which is not necessarily at peak speed - but would be during the most extreme maneuver and/or control surface displacements.

Your implication here is that it was simply the high speed that caused the pre-impact damage. What evidence is there to support this? Was the plane in level flight the whole time prior to impact?
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
Can we dispense with fiction now that "Blindidiots" is not Rob Balsamo? I am going flying now Rob and will be unable to answer your Gish Gallop/ strawman tactic for a while. In the mean time go back and re-read the report. There were indeed four radar sites that tracked the flight after it lost power to the transponders.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Blindidiots claims to be Yost, a student pilot from the PFT forum. He's basically paraphrasing indirect responses from Rob, but does not appear to be the same person, unless he's faking a conversation with himself.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
False, all systems were powered after the engines were placed into the 'cut-off' position. The FDR data shows that all 3 HYD systems were indicating normal pressure and never indicated low pressure(Indicating they were functioning normally). The HYD system then suddenly stopped recording (along with all the other FDR data) while it was at Normal pressure.. further indicating in flight structural failure.
Sigh. If fuel is cut-off to the engines, then they do not run. Are you (him) interpreting the NTSB report of the Egypt Air 990 FDR correctly?
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2002/aab0201.pdf

(ETA: Found the reference, page #64, under the heading "Analysis".):
EA990Pg64.jpg

At this point, the airplane was well outside its normal flight envelope, diving and beyond Vmo/Mmo. I could surmise that the windmilling of the engine(s) (at least one) was sufficient to keep the N2 spool(s) sufficient to maintain the IDG(s) and associated hydraulic pump(s). However. as the narrative continues, airspeed decreased, the airplane "ballooned" up to about FL250, and speed decayed. Eventually the FDR and CVR stopped because the engines would have spooled down, absent the windmilling forces. At any point (when the engines' N2 were sufficient) the Fuel Switches can be moved back to "Run" and the engines should re-light easily. Checking the B767 QRH procedure, it doesn't specify a particular N2 value, but uses indicated airspeed (which will provide equivalent windmilling speeds for the engines):
B767QRH.jpg



Another error with the NTSB report...
?? Oh, now P4T is "better" and more qualified than the entire field of expertise at NTSB? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

BlindIdiots

Member
The reason peak speed was used in the analysis, was because using any speed slower than it would be moot.
Really? Surely the key points would be when the most stress is put on the airframe or control surfaces, which is not necessarily at peak speed - but would be during the most extreme maneuver and/or control surface displacements.

Your implication here is that it was simply the high speed that caused the pre-impact damage. What evidence is there to support this? Was the plane in level flight the whole time prior to impact?
Stress is put on the airframe when it experiences speeds past it's VD, the airframe is affected by flutter and then breaks shortly after.

This is what flutter does.


The peak speed calculated is in the NTSB report.
"At 0150:23, the airspeed reached its peak calculated
value of 0.99 Mach, as the airplane descended through about 22,200 feet msl."

"The maximum speed calculated for the accident airplane during the accident
sequence was Mach 0.99 at 0150:23."

Was the plane in level flight the whole time prior to impact?

No, as you can see above it was in a dive descending through about 22,200 msl, in the time when the "peak speed" was calculated.

What evidence is there to support this?
Read everything I said above.

"Along these same lines, the Egyptian Team continually requested that the NTSB and
Boeing perform wind tunnel tests on the Boeing 767 flight control systems at the same speeds
experienced by Flight 990 -- up to .99 Mach. There is no validated Boeing data on the 767
airplane above .91 Mach; consequently, any conclusions about the performance of the airplane at
higher speeds are necessarily based upon the extrapolation of .91 Mach data -- an extremely
speculative technique when dealing with transonic speeds. The requests for wind tunnel testing
to obtain accurate performance data were denied. Consequently, a thorough aircraft performance
analysis to explain the meaning of the FDR data and the forces working on the airplane has not
been accomplished."

"The contention that the elevators would be minimally affected by
aerodynamic forces at .99 Mach [according to the NTSB] is not supported by any validated test data. As noted previously,
the extrapolation of airplane performance is not appropriate for the transonic speeds experienced
by Flight 990. Consequently, the conclusion that the elevator split was caused by different
inputs to each elevator surface is not supported by reliable evidence."


Note that the Egyptian Investigators contest NTSB's conclusion of the elevator split. Therefore it is more likely to be due to structural failure considering the evidence for that.

Can we dispense with fiction now that "Blindidiots" is not Rob Balsamo?
Seriously, for the last time I am not Rob Balsamo.

Gish Gallop/ strawman tactic for a while
Nope, it is not Gish Gallop/ strawman tactic, Rob directly addressed your argument, and you ignored him.

In the mean time go back and re-read the report. There were indeed four radar sites that tracked the flight after it lost power to the transponders.
No,you tell me where the NTSB report says that and show me the radar data from all "four" of the sites.

False, all systems were powered after the engines were placed into the 'cut-off' position. The FDR data shows that all 3 HYD systems were indicating normal pressure and never indicated low pressure(Indicating they were functioning normally). The HYD system then suddenly stopped recording (along with all the other FDR data) while it was at Normal pressure.. further indicating in flight structural failure.
I apologize for using the word "false" in the beginning of my statement, I just tend to begin debate like that, I am not denying that the HDG loses power when the fuel is cut off to the engines.

At this point, the airplane was well outside its normal flight envelope, diving and beyond Vmo/Mmo. I could surmise that the windmilling of the engine(s) (at least one) was sufficient to keep the N2 spool(s) sufficient to maintain the IDG(s) and associated hydraulic pump(s).
Correct.

However. as the narrative continues, airspeed decreased, the airplane "ballooned" up to about FL250, and speed decayed.
You are telling me that the airplane climbed nearly 10,000 feet loaded for a Trans-Atlantic flight without engines(where is your evidence for this)? The plane was in a dive, the speed was increasing because was in a dive.

Eventually the FDR and CVR stopped because the engines would have spooled down, absent the windmilling forces
The plane was in a dive and the FDR and CVR stopped working 16 seconds after the peak speed was recorded.

?? Oh, now P4T is "better" and more qualified than the entire field of expertise at NTSB?
P4T are not the only ones who found fault with the NTSB's conclusions.

I suggest you read the Egyptian Investigation teams response to the NTSB report on page 118.
 
Last edited:

jaydeehess

Senior Member
If I recall correctly, Egypt Air was quite concerned that the conclusion was pilot suicide and fought hard to try and blame the aircraft instead.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
If I recall correctly, Egypt Air was quite concerned that the conclusion was pilot suicide and fought hard to try and blame the aircraft instead.
And yet the NTSB had to revise their "final report" several times due to the points raised by the Egyptian investigators. Not to mention the fact that the NTSB have not provided any evidence for their claims, including wind tunnel testing.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member
Do you feel the basic cause of the crash was not pilot suicide?

Would that not be cause for Egypt to want changes whether fully technically justified or not?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
No evidence at all - really??
And yet the NTSB had to revise their "final report" several times due to the points raised by the Egyptian investigators. Not to mention the fact that the NTSB have not provided any evidence for their claims,
we must be looking at different reports then the report on the NTSB website lists oodles of evidence - FDR and CVR information, ATC info, reviews of actual wreckage, etc., etc.

...... including wind tunnel testing.
Except of course for the wind tunnel testing that was included - eg note 68:

 

jaydeehess

Senior Member
Instead of "Flutter at a Glance" perhaps there is a more in depth treatment showing any one of the examples of flutter in testing from beginning of test through to airframe failure.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Instead of "Flutter at a Glance"...
Indeed. That video is a compilation of disparate examples, with no references nor citations.

And, I take pains to point out, quite outdated. Not any of the video examples display a modern airliner, and certainly not a B757 nor B767.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Do you feel the basic cause of the crash was not pilot suicide?

Would that not be cause for Egypt to want changes whether fully technically justified or not?
I follow the evidence, not my "feelings".

The evidence shows that EA990 suffered structural failure well below the performance observed of "UA175". This is a fact.

Those who "feel" that "UA175" was a standard 767 based on what they have been told by the govt... .have yet to provide precedent and evidence. This is a fact.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member
No speed indication, no reference as to how long the sample airframe was subjected to the airspeed it was experiencing before massive destructive flutter set in.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Instead of "Flutter at a Glance" perhaps there is a more in depth treatment showing any one of the examples of flutter in testing from beginning of test through to airframe failure.
"Airplane speed limits are typically determined by something known as flutter. Flutter is the violent vibration of an airfoil that's usually associated with excessive airspeeds. Flutter can lead to airfoil disintegration, which is of course a very bad thing. Flutter occurs at high speeds, where the normal elastic and inertial dampening qualities of the airfoil prevent excessive vibration. In other words, if a vibration occurs in a control surface, that surface's engineered qualities will dampen the vibration, thus preventing it from increasing in amplitude. Whew! To put it simply, you want to avoid flutter at all costs.
Many years ago, before oscilloscopes and sensitive vibration measuring devices were commonly used, aerodynamicists had a very basic means of identifying an airline's flutter speed. They'd find a skilled test pilot, show him a wheelbarrow full of money, then send him aloft to dive the airplane at dazzling airspeeds. The test pilot's job was to determine the speed at which the airplane experiences flutter.

When he returned-and when his breathing slowed and he regained his ability to speak-he'd tell his tale. He'd inform the engineers about the speed beyond which the airplane experienced flutter. This speed is known as Vd or design dive speed." Source - http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/1998/May/199805_Operating_Within_the_Envelope_Part_1.html



"The dive speed [Vd] is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations [flutter] develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake." Source - http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I delete posts that wander off topic, violate the posting guidelines, or are excessively impolite. Metabunk attempts to keep things focused, so that useful results will be produced, and will be findable. Long rambling threads with multiple digressions are not what this forum is about.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Except of course for the wind tunnel testing that was included - eg note 68:

Keep scrolling down....




"In particular, the NTSB’s conclusion that the probable cause of the accident is the
deliberate action of the relief First Officer is not supported by any evidence of intent or motive
that would explain the First Officer’s alleged conduct. Indeed, the NTSB omits any discussion
of motive and intent and of the facts in the record that squarely contradict a theory of deliberate
pilot action."


"Along these same lines, the Egyptian Team continually requested that the NTSB and
Boeing perform wind tunnel tests on the Boeing 767 flight control systems at the same speeds
experienced by Flight 990 -- up to .99 Mach. There is no validated Boeing data on the 767
airplane above .91 Mach; consequently, any conclusions about the performance of the airplane at
higher speeds are necessarily based upon the extrapolation of .91 Mach data -- an extremely
speculative technique when dealing with transonic speeds. The requests for wind tunnel testing
to obtain accurate performance data were denied. Consequently, a thorough aircraft performance
analysis to explain the meaning of the FDR data and the forces working on the airplane has not
been accomplished."

"The contention that the elevators would be minimally affected by
aerodynamic forces at .99 Mach [according to the NTSB] is not supported by any validated test data. As noted previously,
the extrapolation of airplane performance is not appropriate for the transonic speeds experienced
by Flight 990. Consequently, the conclusion that the elevator split was caused by different
inputs to each elevator surface is not supported by reliable evidence."
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Those who "feel" that "UA175" was a standard 767 based on what they have been told by the govt... .have yet to provide precedent and evidence.
"Precedent"?? "Told by the govt"?? (That seems a little paranoid).
There was no "precedent" to the events of 9/11. Also, neither P4T nor any others have presented anything that remotely acts as an alternative explanation for AAL11, UAL175, AAL77 and UAL93.

I recommend a book that is written by a pilot, and will be easily understood by pilots (as well as the layperson).

"Touching History"

http://www.amazon.com/Touching-History-Untold-Unfolded-America/dp/1400157609

 

MikeC

Closed Account
Keep scrolling down....
I read all that - but again you miss the point - you said htey did NO wind tunnel testing - whereas in fact they did SOME such testing.

You also said they had NO evidence for their conclusions - whereas they had a lot of evidence.

You made claims that were, at best, unsupported - you may think they should have done MORE wind tunnel testing, you may disagree with their conclusions....but your statements do not say that - you deny that the testing or evidence exists at all.

It is, at best, stupid hyperbole......and rather than just acknowledge that you try to justify it - with something that does not do so - indeed nothing can do so because you are wrong in fact - why not just man up?
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Either you have precedent (which may contradict something), or you have no precedent - saying you have both is nonsense.
Where did I claim I have "no precedent"?

Weedwhacker is the one who claimed he has no precedent for the events of 9/11.

I have stated I do have precedent which contradicts the events of 9/11.... and I provided a source.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
I read all that - but again you miss the point - you said htey did NO wind tunnel testing - whereas in fact they did SOME such testing.
False, you missed the point.... and obviously didn't read the Egyptian response in full.

Here is a reminder....

"The requests for wind tunnel testing to obtain accurate performance data were denied. Consequently, a thorough aircraft performance
analysis to explain the meaning of the FDR data and the forces working on the airplane has not
been accomplished."




You also said they had NO evidence for their conclusions - whereas they had a lot of evidence.
Really?

Great. So supposedly you have the full radar data sets and wind tunnel data to share with the rest of us? If so, please provide it as not only have many aviators been waiting for such data, but so have the people of Egypt.... since 1999.



It is, at best, stupid hyperbole....
Well, that isn't very polite.. .is it?
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
You know what folks (well, Mick is probably the only one who will read this and then delete it)... I won't bother to reply here anymore... it is clear the moderator/owner is extremely biased and just deletes my replies.. .so why waste my time?... it has even caught the attention of the members here who have emailed me....

For those who wish to actually discuss the topic.. and if this post is approved... visit us at P4T forum. Your post will never be deleted. It is just impolite. If your post is off topic... it will be moved with a redirect link.. but never deleted...

This page will be saved among all the others saved and will eventually be posted to the P4T forum to show the "policy" of Metabunk...

My invitation stands... anyone wishing to debate any of our work is welcome to join the P4T forum... or we can arrange for an on air debate.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Trailspotter Racetrack contrails near Genoa, Italy on December 26 [Air France and EasyJet flights on hold, Fog] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
MikeC Easyjet to create ash cloud over Europe Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Whitebeard Another suspected Novichok incident in Salisbury UK Current Events 4
Mick West How Big is a Tic-Tac? Scale Models of the Nimitz Incident UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 18
Mick West Explained: Photo of "UFO" Used in Connection with Nimitz Incident [Balloon] UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 8
Mick West Conspiracy Theories, Bad Reporting, Bunk, and the Malheur Militia Incident in Burns, Oregon Conspiracy Theories 74
Josh Heuer MH17: Russia Claims Ukranian military plane flying nearby before incident Flight MH17 121
Josh Heuer Is Diane Reidy incident propaganda? Conspiracy Theories 26
MikeG "History" Channel: Quick Debunks General Discussion 9
Rory How Antarctica debunks the flat earth Flat Earth 99
Trailblazer Russ Tanner accidentally debunks chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Bfahome ElectroBOOM debunks "Current Mohan" (History Channel) General Discussion 8
Ray Von Geezer Ian Simpson / Look-up.org.uk debunks chemtrails & geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 13
deirdre Sandy Hook mom "Debunks" Hoaxers <3 Sandy Hook 28
Balance Irish Weatherman debunks chemtrail speculation Contrails and Chemtrails 19
TWCobra Max Bliss inadvertently debunks most chemtrail theories Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Jay Reynolds Bill Cooper Debunks Chemtrails (Vintage Audio) Contrails and Chemtrails 13
Jay Reynolds London Telegraph Debunks Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Leifer Jessie Ventura Debunks Icke, sorta Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West Leaked Osama bin Laden Abbottabad Commission report on Al Jazeera - Debunks Conspiracy Theories Conspiracy Theories 95
HappyMonday MSN Debunks 'Facebook Page' set up before the Boston Bombing' theory Boston Marathon Bombings 2
MikeC Cracked.com debunks "Flouride lowers your IQ" Health and Quackery 37
Jay Reynolds Historical Aerosol Thickness Debunks "Chemtrails are Geoengineering" Contrails and Chemtrails 86
Related Articles























Related Articles

Top