Skygate 911

[William Seger]

12. SSDD

> Seger quotes - "It is noteworthy that the section of Part 23 regarding flutter, 23.629, makes no mention of altitude. "

FAR part 23 is for small aircraft, like a Cessna 172... doh!

So? The Vd discussion, which you did not comment on, is not specific to small aircraft, and nothing I've said depends in any way on anything in 23.629.

>> "He'd inform the engineers about the speed beyond which the airplane experienced flutter. This speed is known as Vd or design dive speed. "

Your expert appears to be confused; that would be the "demonstrated flight diving speed" Vdf, which is not the same as the "design dive speed" Vd. Are you aware that people can look this stuff up on Google?

> Now watch the flight certification test being done on the A380. Notice the pilots visibly shaking in their seats... note the airplane broke prior to Vd/Md, the test had to be aborted, and the airplane had to be modified to reach Vd/Md.

Yeah, well maybe they'd feel a lot safer in a Boeing instead of an Airbus, huh. At Boeing, each "Aircraft is designed to be flutter free up to 1.15 times maximum design dive speed envelope (Vd/Md) up to Mach 1." If Boeing designed it to be flutter free at 1.15 Vd, then tell me again why the 9/11 speeds are "impossible?"

> There is no 50% margin of safety factored above Vd. You are confusing limit load with speed. The 50% margin of Safety is for G loading only.

Thanks for confirming that you were wrong, but no, I'm not the one confusing load with speed. I said, "the way that the engineers will insure that Vd 'is by definition a safe speed' is to multiply the calculated loads by a Factor of Safety, which is typically 1.5." And if you think the Factor of Safety " is for G loading only" then I think you must have missed a day or two in Engineering 101 on your way to becoming an aeronautical expert.

> Vd is the end of the Flight Maneuvering Envelope and the start of the structural failure zone/structural limit..."

Have you stopped using that faked "767 Vg diagram?" The one where you took a generic Vg diagram off the web, erased the speed numbers and plugged in your own assumptions about what a 767 Vg should look like, then offered that as evidence that you were right all along? As a logical fallacy, that would be called "assuming the consequent," but what you did in the service of selling your videos is more properly called fraud.