Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Creative Speculation

In reply to the discussion: Balsamo Busted, again [View all]

superbeachnut

(381 posts)
14. Yes, I agree, you have no idea what the point is
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 10:26 PM
Jun 2014

As seen on 911, Flight 175 got to 590 mph, and did not fall apart. RADAR and Video verify it was a stock 767. I agree, you Gish Gallop along, posting BS.

"Seger shot himself in the foot by posting the above VG.

In fact, the out-of-focus text in the Structural Failure zone (red zone) at the left and right arrows designating the "Overspeed Margin" is Vd.

The VG diagram he posted above is based on light aircraft, but basically has many of the same definitions as Jet aircraft, except Vno and Vne were removed from Jets in the 60's. Jets accelerate so fast that pilots were exceeding Vno on a regular basis. They were replaced with Vmo... but Vd is still the end of the flight envelope and the start of the structural failure zone for both types of aircraft.

VG diagrams expressing "Structural Failure" at Vne are used for inexperienced pilots as there is only a 10% margin between Vne and Vd. So basically, only 10-20 knots.

Do you think Seger will admit he is wrong?" - johndoeX


Why can't you source all of this? The Vmo/Vne were funny, as was the "structural failure" - and you have no idea how much irony is involved. Where did pilots for truth get "structural failure" at 425 KEAS.


A lie. Proved to be a lie by RADAR and Video. You got a source for your lie?

Your scale is bogus; pilot for truth Fake Vg diagrams start at over 90 knots, not zero knots. Fake Vg diagram - who made it? A failed photoshopped effort by pilots for truth.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Balsamo Busted, again [View all] William Seger Jun 2014 OP
Dang Seger.... wildbilln864 Jun 2014 #1
Oh yeah, I'm ready William Seger Jun 2014 #2
Seger fails comprehension again. johndoeX Jun 2014 #3
ouch! wildbilln864 Jun 2014 #4
Yeah... Seger is pretty much done at this point... johndoeX Jun 2014 #5
"Do you think Seger will admit he is wrong? " wildbilln864 Jun 2014 #6
I agree... johndoeX Jun 2014 #7
You're still using the fudged diagram in your new video? William Seger Jul 2014 #16
LOL, bad guess William Seger Jun 2014 #8
It may say IAS - johndoeX Jun 2014 #9
LOL. Yeah, why admit you were wrong William Seger Jun 2014 #12
Wrong again Seger. johndoeX Jun 2014 #13
I already asked the FAA and two engineering forums William Seger Jun 2014 #15
..., someone made up some stuff, or found another internet journalist to quote mine superbeachnut Jun 2014 #10
Beachy, do you agree with Seger? johndoeX Jun 2014 #11
Yes, I agree, you have no idea what the point is superbeachnut Jun 2014 #14
the ultimate load envelope inam56 Aug 2014 #17
pilots for truth have no aero experts superbeachnut Aug 2014 #18
and 1.15Vd (or better 1.2Vd standards!) need to prove that damping ratio are stable inam56 Aug 2014 #19
767-200 FAA certificat inam56 Aug 2014 #20
1.2 was the old 25.629 superbeachnut Aug 2014 #21
use of FSX by balsamo inam56 Aug 2014 #22
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»Balsamo Busted, again»Reply #14