• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 175 plane speed challenged

ZENSMACK89 said:
Yeah they must have just guessed. I mean it's not like there are many planes they would have to check for missing parts or anything.



LOL... So where are they for 175?



So? So what? I know you are but what am I? LOL

Classic
Click to expand...


They are with the airline who has the recovered parts. Why do you ask?

Still waiting for you to prove flight 800. Where are the serial numbers?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Yeah they must have just guessed. I mean it's not like there are many planes they would have to check for missing parts or anything.
Click to expand...
When the mechanic looked at the engine that went out and saw parts missing, that would narrow it down really fast.


LOL... So where are they for 175?
Click to expand...
Yes, 175 had parts with serial numbers. I would bet dollars to donuts that someone checked the serial numbers against the records. But I didn't do it myself, so I don't have the data.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Yeah they must have just guessed. I mean it's not like there are many planes they would have to check for missing parts or anything.
Click to expand...


You're flirting with Stundie territory. Dude, it wasn't a minor piece. It was a part that rotates at 9000 RPM. The pilots were probably aware that something was wrong because the engine would have fodded out, making a very loud noise that would've resembled an explosion, and been shutdown.

Here is a picture of an airplane that also lost a fan disk.

Pretty obvious, eh?

99024704120d553d9.jpg


Classic
Click to expand...


Indeed!
 
Yeah sure. LOL

"CBS 2's Rafael Romo reports that a piece of metal about 12 inches in diameter landed just a couple feet away from Dorothy Gohn's bed as she was sleeping at her home at about 1 a.m."
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
"CBS 2's Rafael Romo reports that a piece of metal about 12 inches in diameter landed just a couple feet away from Dorothy Gohn's bed as she was sleeping at her home at about 1 a.m."
Click to expand...

Seriously, what's your point with this? You think the NWO planted that part next to her bed or something?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Yeah sure. LOL

"CBS 2's Rafael Romo reports that a piece of metal about 12 inches in diameter landed just a couple feet away from Dorothy Gohn's bed as she was sleeping at her home at about 1 a.m."
Click to expand...


And the piece of metal was......??

...and the one that departed the plane above was about 18 inches in diameter. It was the same part, different engine. The same thing happened on a DC-10 over Iowa years ago....that piece was even bigger still, perhaps 24 inches. No search for the airplane was necessary. In fact, it crashed.

The moral of the story is: When you lose an integral piece of a turbine engine, no investigation as to the identity of the aircraft is necessary. Besides the part wouldn't have had a data plate anyways.....because it rotates at almost 10,000 RPM.

Please just stop.
 
apathoid said:
You're flirting with Stundie territory. Dude, it wasn't a minor piece. It was a part that rotates at 9000 RPM. The pilots were probably aware that something was wrong because the engine would have fodded out, making a very loud noise that would've resembled an explosion, and been shutdown.

Here is a picture of an airplane that also lost a fan disk.

Pretty obvious, eh?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/99024704120d553d9.jpg[/qimg]




Indeed!
Click to expand...

WOW. I wouldn't have wanted to be in seat 43F.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
What model is that again?
Click to expand...

It's an MD-88 and the ship in question is still flying. The incident happened in 1996, when the aircraft was fairly new. The fan disk had a factory defect. Luckily it happened on the runway instead of in-flight.

As a passenger and as a mechanic who frequently works on them - I hate them and they cannot go away fast enough.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
On propeller-driven transports they had a zone abreast the inboard props that they didn't install seats because losing a prop was foreseeable in any landing gear mishap.
Click to expand...


Well nowadays they paint a red line on the engine where fan section starts...so if you look out the window and see that you're adjacent to the line - start looking around for an empty seat. :eek:
 
apathoid said:
And the piece of metal was......??

...and the one that departed the plane above was about 18 inches in diameter. It was the same part, different engine. The same thing happened on a DC-10 over Iowa years ago....that piece was even bigger still, perhaps 24 inches. No search for the airplane was necessary. In fact, it crashed.

The moral of the story is: When you lose an integral piece of a turbine engine, no investigation as to the identity of the aircraft is necessary. Besides the part wouldn't have had a data plate anyways.....because it rotates at almost 10,000 RPM.

Please just stop.
Click to expand...

Why don't you stop with your factless assertions? You have nothing.
 
apathoid said:
Well nowadays they paint a red line on the engine where fan section starts...so if you look out the window and see that you're adjacent to the line - start looking around for an empty seat. :eek:
Click to expand...

I've nearly been killed in an aircraft once already, but I'll not be too afraid of rotor failures. I am more afraid of the guy way up front in the left seat who is getting a divorce and it isn't going his way... And who forgot to enter his altimeter correction as a result.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Oh come on if you are going to cherry pick then pick the good parts and don't forget all the laughing at the mere suggestion of a 767 going 500 mph at 700 ft...


Jeff Hill: So there is no way it could be going 500 miles an hour at 700 feet attitude then?

Leslie Hazzard: (LAUGHS!) Not a chance. Not that fast.


Jeff Hill: Would it be possible for it to go 500 miles an hour at 700 feet attitude?

Lori Bechtold: I don’t think so. (that is before she hung up)
Click to expand...

This came up on another forum and a poster there contacted a boeing engineer he knew who had this to say on the matter:

Getting a Boeing PR person and a random Boeing engineer to say “that sounds reasonable” hardly counts as proof. I think I can help debunk this “proof” using only public sources…

The airplane is flight-tested and certified to be safe (flutter-free, able to carry gust loads, controllable, etc.) up to Vd (the maximum dive speed). This speed may be found in the type certification documents that are filed with the FAA.. For the 767-200 at Sea Level, this speed can be found in Type Certificate # A1NM, available from the FAA at the follwing web site:
rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/15302e51a401f11a8625718b00658962/$FILE/A1NM.pdf

If you want to find it yourself, just do a Google search for “Type certificate A1NM Vd”. This document clearly states that the Vd for a 767-200 is 420KCAS (knots calibrated airspeed). This is the equivalent of 420*1.1516 = 484 mph (calibrated).

At sea level on a standard day, this would also be the true airspeed. As it is, the corrections are small. Now you need to compensate for compressibility to convert to equivalent airspeed. At sea level on a standard day, calibrated airspeed and equivalent airspeed are equal. At 700ft and 420KCAS, we’ll have a downward correction about one knot – say 419KEAS.

Next we correct to true airspeed. Assuming a standard day, the air density at 700 feet is 97.9806% of that at Sea Level. V = Ve /(.979806)^.5 = 419 / 1.01025 = 423.3 knots. Now lets convert to mph. 423.3*1.1516 = 487.5 mph (true).

Remember, the airplane has actually been flight-tested at various altitudes (all the way down to near-sea-level) to establish these values, and in fact, it is standard industry practice to go a bit faster during the flight test and set these Vd values slightly to the conservative side. So, odds are that the 767 was flight-tested to about 500mph in a dive near sea-level.
Click to expand...


It seems simple enough.
 
Odd... I would think an amateur trying to knock down a building would be a bit less worried (or perhaps even aware of) about the possibility of overstepping the tested capabilities of the plane. (note, tested; the numbers cmcaulif reported have actually been flown, without damage to the plane. It is not as if they test it to failure, then draw the line at "don't do what we just did.") Certainly not conclusive, but by this argument the excessive speed is evidence in favor of amateur pilots.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
You're still below anyone’s *estimate of how fast 175 is claimed to have been going. So were they were wrong to say anywhere from 545 to 590 mph?

BTW when these planes are tested at top speeds do they use an amateur pilot?

*http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf
Click to expand...

I hope you realize when these planes reached the speeds they were tested at, they did not explode into a terrible fireball of screaming death.

This shows that these aircraft are certified to fly at 484 mph at these altitudes, meaning it is the upper limit for what is safe, which a terrorist clearly wouldn't care about.

I don't know how you jump to the conclusion that the aircraft cant possibly get to speeds of up to 100mph over this tested, recommended limit from this data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom