« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Absolutely Nothing

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Sat, 21 Jun 14 2:20 PM | 34 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 15689 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 15688 by faul)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

hi faul,

i'm perfectly willing to consider alternative evidence. but it can't be maximum operating velocities. that's like using a speed limit to define the speed of a porsche.

at the moment, we have found very little information to indicate the break up rate of a 767-200. we have an engineer/ pilot testing the simulator software. he asserts that Mach 0.86 is the limit at any altitude. he also says the software is designed to mirror the actual capabilities of the plane and using this he reached the speed limits.

and we have wikipedia saying the shock waves are the same at any altitude because while air is denser at lower altitudes it is also warmer.

so those three bits of information (poster knowledge, simulation software, mach number theory) agree. and that's the best i have been able to do.

i also speculated that engines may be sensitive to warmth, which may explain lower speed limits at lower altitudes. who knows. maybe engines can catch fire if overheated. a completely different reason for not speeding at low altitudes. maybe the pilots risked the engines exploding in flying at high velocities at low altitude.

what do you make of the importance of heat in defining shock waves? i didn't see your response. it's always fun to learn stuff while working on problems. your argument was that air density was the only variable. but everything i've read says temperature has a bigger impact.

i am not in dispute with boeing and the faa. i fully accept that those maximum operating velocities apply. it's important not to expose planes to excessive wear and tear in normal operation.

in the absence of a compelling argument based on actual air frame break up velocities, which clearly are hard to find because even a vne may be set for reasons other than the failure of the air frame, i don't see the authority for your claim of a cover up. the burden is on you. your argument requires there to be an issue. and so far, there isn't one.

by the way, it appears the radar velocity measurement wasn't the velocity on impact. this was calculated from videos at around 435 knots. reduce that by let's say 5% for average west-east wind speed and you get an air speed of 413 knots or so.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Absolutely Nothing
By: faul
in ALEA
Sat, 21 Jun 14 1:07 PM
Msg. 15688 of 54959

A Google search reveals......

"A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure."

"A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 Mach
at any altitude"

Apart from your Shill Bloggers website & a few
Conspiracy/Debunker websites that have copied &
pasted the same bunkum NOBODY makes the claim
that a 767 airframe is rated to 0.86 MACH at any
Altitude!!

Your WHOLE theory depends on this being
a FACT yet i cannot find this FACT in any
FAA,GOV or BOEING documents or any Authoritive
paper......YET YOU PRESENT IT AS A SCIENTIFIC
FACT?????????PROVE IT!

I did a google search of myself & got 5 times
the results as a google serach of your claimed
"SCIENTIFIC AERONAUTIC FACT"......LOL!!!!!SmileNone
from Conspiracy sites.

You will now Probably say it's NOT your Job
to Prove it,you read it on a Debunker's website,
it came from one Aussie Engineer so it's a
proven fact of Aeronautics....& that's Scientific
enough for you....The FAA & BOEING don't know
what they are talking about!


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next