Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Absolutely Nothing

By: faul in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Sat, 21 Jun 14 5:24 PM | 23 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 15703 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 15701 by Cactus Flower)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

"break up speeds are more likely calculations as the test would kill the pilot."

So they didn't carry out any real life tests as
operating above 0.5 Mach at sea level may have
caused the Death of a pilot....but their mathematical
calculations show a 0.89 rating......??

So where are your scientific calculations &
wind tunnel tests that show your sole engineer's
0.86Mach airframe rating at any altitude?

Where is the scientific data he based his Mach
airframe rating on?

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Absolutely Nothing
By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Sat, 21 Jun 14 4:43 PM 		Msg. 15701 of 54959

yes. i am sure the figure for limiting wear and tear was carefully calculated. they probably put some planes through tests to see how much wear and tear occurred after such and such miles.

break up speeds are more likely calculations as the test would kill the pilot.

common sense doesn't work well for you. last time it told you to ignore temperature when thinking about stress on an aircraft operating at altitude. now it causes obvious fatalities.

but unfortunately the wear and tear figures are no use for your conspiracy theory.

and your conspiracy theory also requires that the thousands of people who saw the commercial jetliners didn't see them. observation is science.

and the air speed of the united airlines flight at "sea level" was about 100 knots less than you are using.

awkward problem.


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