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.
I am at a loss to understand the reason for that picture, as posted.
Now...again, to be polite as possible....please have a good life,
Was this aircraft operatring outside its aircraft envelope?
(my emphasis)The airplane performance study indicated that when the vertical stabilizer separation began, the aerodynamic loads were about two times the loads defined by the design envelope.
Was this aircraft operating outside its aircraft envelope?
I see captain bobby created a new sock account. At least he's not pretending to be a women this time..
No. American flight 587 was NOT outside its normal envelope. Why even bring this up? It is highly irrelevant.
lmao.... ok...fair enough....
Are you aware that the FAA definition of Va was changed as a result of the AA587 accident?
(retyped by me 'cos I couldn't cut and paste)Contrary to a common misperception among pilots, operating an aeroplane at or below its design maneuvering speed (Va) provides only limited protection against structural damage.....
I was based LGA when that accident happened. I was shooting a visual to LGA 31 and saw the smoke from the accident. I have been caught in wake turbulence a few times in and out of JFK, LGA, EWR... and used my rudder to full deflection... side to side multiple times... in all types of airplanes. I have never lost a vertical stab yet.
This is sort of what "Jazzy" was claiming. That you can basically do anything within the flight envelope and not cause structural damage.
You, MikeC, have just proven "Jazzy" wrong.
Aircraft tail fins are designed to withstand full rudder deflection in one direction at maneuvering speed. They are not usually designed to withstand an abrupt shift in rudder from one direction to the other.
Because "Jazzy" claims that an aircraft will not fall apart within the flight envelope.
And you are right, weedy... at least that is what we were taught.
But it appears AA587 has proven "Jazzy" wrong... and you have proven "MikeC" wrong.
Meh...I was enjoying watching him being unable to answer questions while complaining that other people had not answered questions.....
What is Balsamo trying to say by relating that despite his full deflection left/right, of the rudder, that his aircraft remained intact?
At first it was the flt77 FDR does not match damage pattern on the ground.
It does. Five full rudder reversals was outside the operational envelope, in that it was never included within it by the Airbus designers, who have since ruled it outside, with strict warnings to the airlines never to employ such a maneuver."Jazzy" has claimed, "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." Does the American 587 picture prove "Jazzy" correct?
Clearly they didn't.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
It does. Five full rudder reversals was outside the operational envelope, in that it was never included within it by the Airbus designers, who have since ruled it outside, with strict warnings to the airlines never to employ such a maneuver.
Its five full rudder oscillations while flying through wake turbulence.
Back again? What, no one visits your forum so you have to make sock accounts everywhere else?
Would you like to link us a real world example of a plane which has lost controllability from going too fast (below sonic prior to failure)?
So you feel NASA wind tunnel flight testing is fake?
So you feel NASA wind tunnel flight testing is fake?
Of the examples in the video, specifically the wind-tunnel examples, show proof that each of those flutter and airframe destruction instances wasn't the result of testing to approach or exceed the airframe's critical Mach number, to include supersonic destruction tests as well.
Are you not familiar with how Vd is established?
Here, let me help you....
Be sure to scroll to the bottom.. .and watch the video....
And if you still are uncertain (since most of the above video is based on Mach number), let me know and I'll get you more sources so you can understand EAS... and the reasons why there is in fact a Vd and a Md.
That wasn't my question, and I certainly did not need to have a "lesson" directed towards me by an amateur.
The question was simple: Evidence was presented in the form of a video titled: "Flutter at a Glance". The video consisted of several short clips with no context. Show the context specific to the wind tunnel examples in order to support the implied claim, as suggested by the posting of that video.
Or, withdraw the claim.
By an "amateur"? Well, now, that isn't very "polite". is it?
It was the most polite way to indicate that from what I've read so far on this Forum, I can presume (as an opinion) that what I saw was written by an amateur.
ETA to clarify: "amateur" in the sense of inexperience with high altitude commercial airliner type airplanes.