WeedWhacker
Senior Member
No, I doubt this. Please take the time to review the posts. Perhaps if you re-read, you will find it.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim WTC airplanes would be uncontrollable at observed speeds
- Thread starter Tony Szamboti
- Start date
No, I doubt this. Please take the time to review the posts. Perhaps if you re-read, you will find it.
Jazzy
Closed Account
But it obviously isn't.
The aircraft were at or beyond their Vne. The outboard ailerons wouldn't have been operable.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Yes, Jazzy. Except to be slightly pedantic, the term for large jets is "Vmo".
WeedWhacker, you made the following claim in this thread above,
"On the B767, there ARE ailerons outboard, near the wingtips....except, these outboard ailerons DO NOT ACTIVATE unless.... the airspeed is below a certain range."
I have asked you multiple times to provide such an "airspeed range" in which you claimed above.
Why are you unable to provide such speed ranges? And furthermore, why do you consider my question "off-topic" when it was you who in fact made the claim in this very thread?
Can you or can you not provide the speed ranges for the B767 outboard aileron lockout and the reasons for the manufacturer locking such control surfaces?
If you continue to evade this question, why should anyone listen to you?
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Yeah....so, I simplified it in a post. Is this a crime?
When in a "clean wing" configuration, the Outboard ailerons lock out in the vicinity of 240 Knots....there are parameters either way, and it depends on whether you are accelerating, or decelerating. Again, this is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about "contollability at high airspeeds". Correct?
AS TO the manufacturer's reason? I can only speculate, but it is likely associated with the phenomenon of "aileron reversal"....a problem first noticed MANY years ago, and since designed out of modern airliners' wing structures.
"in the vicinity of....?" lol
Ok, well, finally you posted a number. Was that so hard?
Are you willing to put your name on that claim as have the many pilots at P4T who have put their names to their claims? Or are you just going to continually attack them from the comfort of your anonymity while tap dancing around your claims without providing any sources for your claims?
I notice you bash John Lear in this thread. Are you the same "weedwhacker" from ATS who believes in UFO'S? Who later had to change his name to "ProudBird" due to the fact you thoroughly discredited your "weedwhacker" name?
False, aileron reversal is different from control reversal. The reason the manufacturer locks out the outboard ailerons (and rudder... elevator displacement), on many different types of aircraft as speed increases, is because of not only control issues, but if such "throw" were introduced into a high speed relative wind, it would rip the airplane apart.
For example, one aircraft I flew limited rudder deflection at 160 KCAS (exactly... not "in the vicinity of...")... because if it was not limited, the whole empannage would rip from the airframe.
And this is also the reason why manufacturers set ultimate limits such as Vmo and Vd.
Jazzy
Closed Account
What is your point with the locked-out aileron controls? What does it have to do with whether the impacting aircraft were controllable or not? Please try not to get up my nose here. Stay on topic, please.
Manufacturers set limitations based on wind tunnel and flight testing. Boeing locks out the outboard ailerons above certain speeds due to the fact the airplane cannot be controlled using the outboard ailerons above such speeds.
The same manufacturer sets higher limitations such as Vmo and Vd because the aircraft cannot be controlled above those speeds using the inboard ailerons (after the outboards have been locked), elevators, trim... etc. Not to mention the fact of the onset of flutter.
Have you read through this site?
http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/
Have you seen the video included?
Have you noticed the test pilots shaking in their seats when attempting flight out to Vd?
Have you noticed the airplane actually had to be modified to reach Vd?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So is your point some or all 911 aircraft were modified to be able to hit their targets ?
My point is this....
Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day based on solid data and facts -- since 9/11/2001 is the catalyst for many of the events shaping our world today -- and the United States Government does not seem to be very forthcoming with answers or facts.
We do not accept the 9/11 Commission Report -- a Commission admittedly "set up to fail" according to the Chairman himself, nor "hypothesis" as a satisfactory explanation for the continued gross violation(s) of the United States Constitution being committed by Government agencies, and the sacrifice every American has made and continue to make -- some more than others.
We stand with the numerous other growing organizations of Firefighters, Medical Professionals, Lawyers, Scholars, Military Officers, Veterans, Religious and Political Leaders, along side Survivors, family members of the victims -- family members of soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice -- including the many Ground Zero workers who are now ill or have passed away, when we ask for a true, new independent investigation into the events of 9/11.
Thank you for taking the time to inform yourself.
Jazzy
Closed Account
So what. It can still be fully controlled without using them.
That isn't why the limitations are set. They are set because above such speeds control inputs plus atmospheric turbulence (which aren't so predictable) may take airframe deflections or stresses beyond range.
Static loads are designed for and computed up to Mach 0.94, at which point trans-sonic instability tends to kick in. This means that the 757 and the 767s could have been very gently steered through still air at 720 mph or 625 knots.
Passenger planes which have been pointed vertically straight down by their pilots from cruising altitude have been known to exceed the speed of sound without disintegrating.
No, but similar.
I certainly would if I was doing that. No-one before you has tried what you are about to try.
That wouldn't surprise me. I would sense a need for larger air brakes, for a start.
So what is your point? Oh, I see. You don't have a point on this topic. Thanks for the time-waster.
Last edited:
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
How on earth did that 'point' follow on from your previous postings? It's not in the least related.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Metabunk deals with the examination of issues that can be explained, examined, and determined to be fact or bunk. You need to identify an issue to be examined. We do not normally deal in generalities, we deal in specifics as much as possible. If your issue is aircraft can not be controlled in sufficient manner at the speeds observed in 911, the obvious answer is they were and did.
It can? At what speeds? How can an airplane possibly be controlled above limitations set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing? Why would any manufacturer lockout any flight control surface if it can be used? Why would any manufacturer set any limitation for anything?
How much flight time do you have?
False
Clearly you are unfamiliar with Dynamic loads and pressure.... and the purposes for EAS.
Really? Which ones?
Clearly you know nothing regarding flight test certification. I recommend you google Flutter Testing.
need more?
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Why don't you just show your evidence which proves him wrong instead of alluding to things elsewhere? Just show it if you think can rebutt it.
That is not my claim. Clearly the aircraft were controlled and hit their target. The issue is.... were they standard 757/767 aircraft as alleged. The performance figures suggest otherwise. I suppose this is the reason why none of the 9/11 Aircraft have ever been positively identified via serial/part numbers?
MikeC
Closed Account
He answered that he wasn't going to give a figure because it is off topic.
You might not like eth answer - clearly it was not the one you were after, but it was an answer.
And if you are keen on finding out the figure why not research it yourself.
MikeC
Closed Account
No, that is not true.
they set limits because the loadings from using those controls at high speed would bee too high for the structure.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So you are claiming the aircraft had to be modified. OK now we have something to debate. What were the modifications and how were they accomplished?
He is the one who claims that aircraft can be controlled well above Vmo and Vd with outboard aileron lockout. However, he has not provided one example. In fact, I have provided several eamples where this is not possible.
How do you expect me to prove a negative? Why do you not demand the same standard for those who claim a 767 can be controllable and stable at Vd+90 knots?
TWCobra
Senior Member.
Your VG diagram is incorrect. Please amend EA990 to VD+23 and 2.1G with an annotation that it was structurally sound at that point. Also please in include the Easy jet aircraft at 1.7 G and Vd+44 with the annotation (still flying today after landing undamaged).
Quote: How much flying time do you have?
Appeal to authority. straw man? Welcome to the forum Robert.
Quote: How much flying time do you have?
Appeal to authority. straw man? Welcome to the forum Robert.
Last edited:
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
I see a lot of pedantics here. Now, could you please stay on topic?
Oh and BTW...when I post, I assume I am speaking to a non-pilot, so I choose words that a layperson (such as yourself, maybe?) can understand easily.
Last edited:
Jazzy
Closed Account
Control forces increase as the square of the speed. This means if you double your speed you need only a quarter of the control area for a given force. This is the reason why surfaces are split up and the hydraulic pressures are taken down progressively with speed increase. Nobody wants increased aerodynamic and control forces with increase of speed in a passenger plane. Everyone wants control effectiveness to continue below stall speed.
Answered in a previous post. Try re-reading it.
How long have you been an aeronautical engineer and industrial designer?
Because?
You might prove your familiarity by reading what I write.
There are more.
Because?
Didn't need it at all. The airframe design will be such that Vd = 0.94 Mach, where trans-sonic fluttering sets in. In the case of the HP146 above, conservative calculations and low trans-sonic instability allowed it to exceed 1.0 Mach.
need more?
Your diagram doesn't take into account external aerodynamic forces, so Va isn't the point up to which one could certify the airframe to be safe. You didn't mention it, so I know exactly where you are coming from.
Last edited:
Are you saying that flutter does not occur in any structure unless exceeding Mach .94? And that Mach .94 is the flutter limit for all aircraft (and structures)?
lol...
Jazzy
Closed Account
Only you appear to believe that. Instabilities can always be triggered by unpredictable events such that even the same airframe would produce a range of results. The 0.94 Mach is worked towards. Beyond it are swiftly diminishing returns.
And that approach is consistent with maintaining 500+ mph high altitude cruise conditions for contemporary passenger aircraft and is common across the industry. It produces a certified rugged aircraft which will never disintegrate, no matter what normal combination of internal or external forces it meets, within its operational envelope.
A typical airframe's maximum allowable straight-line airspeed, if it can generate the power to achieve it, is normally limited to 70% of the above. But nobody will admit it.
Last edited:
lol... false. The readers can read who brought up "flutter" at .94 Mach.
Hey 'Einstein", are you aware that Vd (it's actually called Md at such speeds) for the 767 is .91 Mach?
If so, why did you claim that Vd = .94 Mach?
Todays Commercial/Charter/Corporate jet aircraft fly at much higher airspeeds than "500+ mph" at high altitude cruise.
lol.... it seems like you are stuck in the 60's?
Ok, if you say so Champ. But you may want to actually learn how to understand Jet travel before you continue further.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Oh wait....you are attempting to claim aerodynamic flutter as pertains to the airplanes (I.E., AAL 11 and UAL 175) on 9/11?
Because, in your quote (above) you specifically reference a speed of Mach .94
Hmmm....OK....what is the speed range estimate for UAL 175? (we can ignore AAL 11, since it can be agreed to have been slower, per the estimates).
Pick an airspeed....500 knots? 550 knots? Using some available estimates obtained from the Internet...let's split the difference, and "assume" 525 Kts.
Now, using an online Airspeed/Mach calculator (and any pilots at home can use your own "Whiz-Wheel"):
http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html#CASMachTASEAS
Entering the above site, we input the data. Let's use 1,000 feet (be sure to check your units, because they can be altered by the user) for the Altitude (MSL)
Let's insert the CAS of 525 Knots (again, check the units). Then, click the "Compute" button....answer for Mach number is: 0.8062380311735361
Let's round that down to a reasonable two places....so, at MOST....Mach 0.81, for the speed and altitude of UAL 175. Not anywhere near Mach 0.94
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
AND also, since we are talking about regular passenger airliners approaching their limits....the speed of Mach .94 was suggested (and refuted, above) pertaining to United (UAL) 175.
But, let's see what some other airplane has been made to perform, during flight certification testing:
Yeah....a "Flutter test" for the A380. Where they, in flight testing, force the airplane to reach Mach 0.96
Noting that in the video, the (slightly breathless and over-exuberant narrator) says that the first flight resulted in damage to the "undercarriage". To my eyes, it was merely some of the aerodynamic fairings, and Airbus re-designed them.
EDIT...and at the very end, as they are being marshalled in....that nosewheel is PERFECTLY centered on the line!! Wouldn't expect any less.
Last edited:
Psst... weedwhacker, I didn't claim Vd = Mach .94. I was questioning "Jazzy" who claimed that Vd = Mach .94 before flutter occurs.
Might it be time for you to change your name to "ProudBird" again.... as you had to do at ATS when you were thoroughly discredited for your UFO beliefs and lack of aeronautical knowledge...
lol
False.
The aircraft was tested to Mach .96, the Md of the Airplane. It had to abort the test at Mach .93 due to breaking something on the belly and the airplane had to be modified to reach Vd.
Do you people even read/watch anything you source?
Edit: I see "weedwacker" edited his post after I quoted him. The original can be seen in my quotes above as he tried to cover up his mistake.
Might it be time for you to change your name to "ProudBird" again.... as you had to do at ATS when you were thoroughly discredited for your UFO beliefs and lack of aeronautical knowledge...
lol
False.
The aircraft was tested to Mach .96, the Md of the Airplane. It had to abort the test at Mach .93 due to breaking something on the belly and the airplane had to be modified to reach Vd.
Do you people even read/watch anything you source?
Edit: I see "weedwacker" edited his post after I quoted him. The original can be seen in my quotes above as he tried to cover up his mistake.
Last edited:
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Yes, I mis-typed and wrote Mach 0.98, instead of Mach 0.96.
But as any airline pilot knows, the difference is only a few knots, at altitude. Any airline pilot who has flown heavy metal, that is.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Actually, I read through that exchange that you had with member "Jazzy", and I have a different interpretation as to "motive".
So what is the difference when considering 150 knots in dynamic pressure?
You didn't know this the last time I asked you, which is one of the reasons you left ATS and came back with "ProudBird".
Hey, I have a question, do you think that a 767 Manual written by Microsoft Flight Sim enthusiasts should take priority over the Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet?
lol
MikeC
Closed Account
Here's the 767 type certificate data sheet - how has anyone contradicted it??
So do you agree with "Jazzy" when he claims, "for contemporary passenger aircraft and is common across the industry. It produces a certified rugged aircraft which will never disintegrate, no matter what normal combination of internal or external forces it meets, within its operational envelope."
Especially after viewing this picture....?
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
It is a non-sequitor. The attempts to "bamboozle" an audience with terms like "dynamic pressure" and "EAS" (btw, EAS is equal to CAS, at or near sea level) and so forth.
I'm more amused, than angry at this point. Because, armchair "pilots" with no actual experience in airliners such as the B757 or B767 seem to be rife in the "9/11 debates".
And, it is just too tedious, at this point. The facts of the airliner impacts at the WTC and the Pentagon, and the nearly vertical nose-in "lawn-dart" of UAL 93 near Shanksville PA are irrefutable. No disrespect to the victims of those four airliners is intended by ME...but I think that some other people are causing more harm, here.
NoParty
Senior Member.
I don't know you or Weedwhacker.
I've never piloted a 767, or anything bigger than an industrial van.
But I will say, your repeated attempts to make this about "UFOs" is harming your "credibility" instead of your apparent
intended target. Also, I'm guessing repeated use of "lol" is popular on the Kardashian site, but, again, not helping here.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Now we see a complete non-sequitor, and a tragic photo of an accident COMPLETELY unrelated to the attacks of 9/11.
I am at a loss to understand the reason for that picture, as posted.
EDIT: Since I didn't copy the image, I will explain. The photo posted by member "SpaceCowboy" was the vertical fin of American Airlines (AAL) 587. The accident occurred on November 12, 2001 and, despite some initial fears (since it was only two months after 9/11) was NOT an act of terrorism. It was, instead, merely pilot error.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587
And:
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/summary/aar0404.html
Last edited:
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Sorry, but I seriously doubt you will generate any interest in your DVDs for sale, here.
Best of luck with the rest of your life, though.
So you feel that dynamic pressure, EAS and CAS calculations are a "non-sequitur" as it pertains to this discussion?
Care to put your name on that?
(of course you won't... and is one of the main reasons why you abandoned your "weedwhacker" userID at ATS)
The rest of your post I didn't bother to read, nor should anyone else. As it is clear you do not understand the importance of dynamic pressure, EAS, CAS, nor manufacturer limitations. Which is perhaps why you will never put your name to your claims, and have been attacking Pilots For 9/11 Truth for years, from the comfort of your anonymity.
Similar threads
