Claim - "Pilots For Truth Made A Fake VG Diagram" - Addressed (1 Viewer)

What does Boeing say about flight above Vmo?

Exceeding Vmo/Mmo can pose a threat to exceeding design structural integrity and design stability & control criteria of the airplane. At speeds less than Vmo/Mmo the airplane’s flight characteristics have been confirmed by flight testing to meet FAR requirements. At speeds in excess of Vmo/Mmo, however, normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured.

Click to expand...

Boeing does not define a Structural Failure speed, the pilots for truth Vg diagram is fake.

Sunzi said:

...Boeing does not define a Structural Failure speed,..

Click to expand...

The very concept is nonsense engineering.

ozeco41 said:

The very concept is nonsense engineering.

Click to expand...

and that is up to YOU to decide what is or is not "nonsense"

My problem with this whole thing from the very beginning
has been that an airliner has very specific flight characteristics
and the pilots who fly these things for a living, stay within specified
boundaries both for safety & control of said aircraft.

in the scenario of a hijacker flying the airliner far outside these known boundaries
there is the issue of control, do the rudder peddles respond in the same way as
with slower speeds? do any of the control surfaces give the desired predictable
result to attempts at controlling the aircraft? If the hijacker can not control the
aircraft, the mission is DOOMED, and so this brings into question the whole scene.
that is were there airliners at all ( that is controlled by hijackers? ) and if not, what?
missile, radio-controlled drone/military aircraft .... or?
This is NOT settled, It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt
that hijackers flew airliners into the WTC towers, Pentagon & the crash at Shanksville.

Sunzi said:

Retired NASA "expert" Inspires Balsamo Fraud? - JREF Forum

Pilots for truth did make a fake Vg diagram. The lie and say you just take a training Vg diagram and add speeds.

Click to expand...

know what the difference is between you and a cartoon planer? the side of the fence. thats it....

CATiwampus said:

and that is up to YOU to decide what is or is not "nonsense"

Click to expand...

I said "nonsense engineering" I'm qualified. You're not. I'm right.

CATiwampus said:

My problem with this whole thing from the very beginning
has been that an airliner has very specific flight characteristics
and the pilots who fly these things for a living, stay within specified
boundaries both for safety & control of said aircraft.

Click to expand...

You sure have a funny idea of what is a problem. I'm perfectly comfortable that pilots doing it for a living stay within the guidelines.

CATiwampus said:

in the scenario of a hijacker flying the airliner far outside these known boundaries
there is the issue of control, do the rudder peddles respond in the same way as
with slower speeds? do any of the control surfaces give the desired predictable
result to attempts at controlling the aircraft? If the hijacker can not control the
aircraft, the mission is DOOMED, and so this brings into question the whole scene.
that is were there airliners at all ( that is controlled by hijackers? ) and if not, what?
missile, radio-controlled drone/military aircraft .... or?
This is NOT settled, It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt
that hijackers flew airliners into the WTC towers, Pentagon & the crash at Shanksville.

Click to expand...

Your preference for arse about logic and your parodies of the requirements for "proof" are well established.

Why keep repeating?? If you decide to get it right way round on both logic and burden of proof - post a public notice and a lot of us will applaud you and welcome you into the real world. Make it a thread OP "CATiwampus decides to work within the principles of the "Scientific Method".

SUGGESTED HOMEWORK: Read up on "Scientific Method" and how it operated by progressive improvement of hypotheses.

ALTERNATIVELY: If you want to keep working by your own rules - post the rules and we can see whether we are interested in playing within your rules.

ozeco41 said:

I said "nonsense engineering" I'm qualified. You're not. I'm right.

Click to expand...

Thank U ever so much for your opinion.

now in your post, do you specify any evidence that would
indicate that an airliner flight characteristics at speeds exceeding 90mph over max
should be as responsive & predictable in control as the aircraft would be at lower speeds?
and if the control is different, could the hijackers feel-out the aircraft and adjust in time to
actually make the mission work?

Given that the first bit, that is the assertion by the faction that supports the
Arab Hijackers story, made the assertion first that indeed Arab Hijackers took control
of airliners and crashed them into buildings. but the PROOF is lacking.
"burden of proof" the first one to make the assertion has the burden.

Sunzi said:

What does Boeing say about flight above Vmo?


Boeing does not define a Structural Failure speed, the pilots for truth Vg diagram is fake.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

That's why in other threads, I joked about PilotsForTruth thinking Vd must equal Velocity Doom...

CATiwampus said:

Thank U ever so much for your opinion.

Click to expand...

You are welcome to my professional opinion. If you find a professional engineer who disagrees tell him/her to come here and explain.

I'll ignore your persistence with arse about logic.

DomenickD said:

know what the difference is between you and a cartoon planer? the side of the fence. thats it....

Click to expand...

Is that a weak attack, or does it mean the fake Vg diagram is nonsense?
What is your comment on the Fake Vg diagram? Is this the best support there is from 911 truth followers, an obscure personal attack based on opinion? Where is the aeronautical expertise from 911 truth? It does not exist.

SBu said:

I get that, but don't understand the impact either for or against conspiracy.

Click to expand...

It's not so much the conspiracy angle as it is the "able to be done" angle.

Whether it is realistic to expect a rookie pilot with a bad reputation "to be able" to perform the required maneuver with the airplane very close to the redline.

Because as the airspeed increases to near the redline, the controls behave very differently, even in the hands of a pilot experienced in the airplane.

CATiwampus said:

and that is up to YOU to decide what is or is not "nonsense"

My problem with this whole thing from the very beginning
has been that an airliner has very specific flight characteristics
and the pilots who fly these things for a living, stay within specified
boundaries both for safety & control of said aircraft.

in the scenario of a hijacker flying the airliner far outside these known boundaries
there is the issue of control, do the rudder peddles respond in the same way as
with slower speeds? do any of the control surfaces give the desired predictable
result to attempts at controlling the aircraft? If the hijacker can not control the
aircraft, the mission is DOOMED, and so this brings into question the whole scene.
that is were there airliners at all ( that is controlled by hijackers? ) and if not, what?
missile, radio-controlled drone/military aircraft .... or?
This is NOT settled, It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt
that hijackers flew airliners into the WTC towers, Pentagon & the crash at Shanksville.

Click to expand...

Good post, and you're quite right--the flight controls on all airplanes stiffen as airspeed increases, and controllability suffers. And the hydraulic boost on some cannot stop the aerodynamic effect. So, to suggest that some rookie pilot could fly this most demanding of maneuvers is absurd.

Over at PFT there is a handful of pilots who are on the record saying they could not perform it.

Henry David said:

It's not so much the conspiracy angle as it is the "able to be done" angle.

Whether it is realistic to expect a rookie pilot with a bad reputation "to be able" to perform the required maneuver with the airplane very close to the redline.

Because as the airspeed increases to near the redline, the controls behave very differently, even in the hands of a pilot experienced in the airplane.

Click to expand...

I suppose I could buy that if they were attempting to 'fly' the plane. As it was, they were trying to crash the plane. I think the phrase 'rather be lucky than good' applies well here.

It's difficult to fly a plane especially at those speeds, but any idiot can crash a plane. Were they good enough to point and crash at high speed? The answer is either 'good enough' or 'lucky enough.' I don't think the answer is 'didn't happen.'

Henry David said:

Good post, and you're quite right--

Click to expand...

That was the worse post anyone could make.

Henry David said:

the flight controls on all airplanes stiffen as airspeed increases,

Click to expand...

Where did you get this lie from? Did you make this up? BS.

Henry David said:

and controllability suffers.

Click to expand...

More BS.

Henry David said:

And the hydraulic boost on some cannot stop the aerodynamic effect.

Click to expand...

What? You did not waste time thinking about this nonsense.

Henry David said:

So, to suggest that some rookie pilot could fly this most demanding of maneuvers is absurd.

Click to expand...

What was the most demanding of maneuvers? Crashing is the easiest maneuver.
You failed to define the most demanding of maneuvers. That is a lie.

Henry David said:

Over at PFT there is a handful of pilots who are on the record saying they could not perform it.

Click to expand...

This I believe. The terrorists can hit the WTC and one of the biggest office buildings in the world, but pilot for truth pilots, the less than 0.1 percent of all pilots can't hit them in the safety of a simulator speaks volumes on the flying skills of pilots in pilots for truth. Terrorist pilots can hit buildings, pilots for truth pilots can't. Terrorist pilots beat pilots for truth; pilots for truth say so.

Is this your best support for the Fake Vg diagram? Failed opinions, and lies.

SBu said:

I suppose I could buy that if they were attempting to 'fly' the plane. As it was, they were trying to crash the plane. I think the phrase 'rather be lucky than good' applies well here.

It's difficult to fly a plane especially at those speeds, but any idiot can crash a plane. Were they good enough to point and crash at high speed? The answer is either 'good enough' or 'lucky enough.' I don't think the answer is 'didn't happen.'

Click to expand...

Well said, well argued. The Truthers keep falling back on that old canard about "Pilots would never exceed the max speed so it all fake!!!@!!", ignoring the fact that the hijackers could not have cared less if, like Balsamo claims, a wing would have fallen off in the terminal stage of their flight. The hijackers did not give a flying fig about top end speeds, Vd or Vf ro Vwhatever. Just the thought of a hijackers thinking "Oh my goodness...in 30 seconds I'll have my 72 virgins! I must not exceed the max operating limit of the aircraft and I must stay under the official Velocity-dive speed else I'll be a failure!" is food for the absurd - or, in this case, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

As far as "difficult to fly a plane", it isn't difficult, at slow speeds or high speeds. It simply isn't. The controls in these state-of-the-art cockpit are designed for ease of use and safety, ultimately to make the ride for the 200 or 300 passengers in back as easy and safe as possible. These jets are wonderfully engineered machines, designed and built with many safeguards and with limits in design specs that far exceed, in some case 1.5 and 2.5 times the required limits. To claim that they are some sort of fragile wallflower that will come apart when its supposed "max speed" is exceeded by some margin in the terminal phase of a suicide flight, over the course of something like 2 or 2 and a half minutes, tells me the person who claims that would result in the aircraft breaking apart is either an idiot or has a very significant bias to claim that. For thsi case, it might very well be both.

Henry David said:

Good post,the flight controls on all airplanes stiffen as airspeed increases, and controllability suffers.

Click to expand...

Yes, good point, in fact control surfaces are limited and/or locked out when exceeding certain speeds. For example, the outer ailerons are locked on the B767 above 275 knots. This is to prevent wing twist at high speeds which would produce control reversal. The inboard ailerons are then used. But they too have limitations, hence one of the many reasons manufacturers set limitations based on wind tunnel and flight testing.

More here....



Again, those who believe the VG diagram is fake obviously do not know how to plot their own VG when the limitations are known. Here is the same diagram as provided in the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics.



Here is the one provided by the FAA.

http://www.ecfr.gov/graphics/pdfs/ec28se91.035.pdf


Note, Vd is the end of the flight envelope and the start of the structural failure zone for every aircraft on this planet. And here is how it pertains to various other aircraft accidents/incidents compared to the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.

PilotsForTruth said:

Note, Vd is the end of the flight envelope and the start of the structural failure zone for every aircraft on this planet. And here is how it pertains to various other aircraft accidents/incidents compared to the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.

Click to expand...

What a load of BS. There is no Structural Failure speed by Boeing, yet you keep spreading the lie, using a fake Vg diagram.
You do not have the data for the structural limit for a 757 from Boeing.


Here is my first jet aircraft flown, a real Vg diagram done by the manufacturer, not like the Fake Vg diagram posted.


Here is my second jet flown, a real Vg diagram.

Why do pilots for truth lie about the Vg diagram, and add fake speeds?

A fake Vg diagram to make up lies about 911.

PilotsForTruth said:

Again, those who believe the VG diagram is fake obviously do not know how to plot their own VG when the limitations are known. Here is the same diagram as provided in the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics.

Here is the one provided by the FAA.

http://www.ecfr.gov/graphics/pdfs/ec28se91.035.pdf


Note, Vd is the end of the flight envelope and the start of the structural failure zone for every aircraft on this planet. And here is how it pertains to various other aircraft accidents/incidents compared to the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.

Click to expand...

Here is the diagram from the FAA pdf linked above, for easier reference....



Note the above diagram is for Federal Aviation Regulation Part 25 - Transport Category Aircraft.
eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations


Note, Vd is the end of the flight envelope.

More here...

The dive speed [Vd] is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake. - Source VD/MD | The Flying Engineer​

(be sure to also scroll down in the above source to watch a video of Test pilots flying the A380 out to Vd. Notice the aircraft vibrations and the fact something broke on the airplane, the test had to be aborted, and the aircraft modified to achieve Vd as set by wind tunnel testing.

More details here on how to create your own VG when the limitations are known...

PilotsForTruth said:

Here is the diagram from the FAA pdf linked above, for easier reference....

Note the above diagram is for Federal Aviation Regulation Part 25 - Transport Category Aircraft.
eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

§25.333 Flight maneuvering envelope.

(a) General. The strength requirements must be met at each combination of airspeed and load factor on and within the boundaries of the representative maneuvering envelope (V-n diagram) of paragraph (b) of this section. This envelope must also be used in determining the airplane structural operating limitations as specified in §25.1501.​

Note, Vd is the end of the flight envelope.

More here...

The dive speed [Vd] is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake. - Source VD/MD | The Flying Engineer​

(be sure to also scroll down in the above source to watch a video of Test pilots flying the A380 out to Vd. Notice the aircraft vibrations and the fact something broke on the airplane, the test had to be aborted, and the aircraft modified to achieve Vd as set by wind tunnel testing.

More details here on how to create your own VG when the limitations are known...

Click to expand...

You can't make a fake Vg diagram real by posting BS you google up. You can't use training Vg diagram to save your fake Vg diagram.
This is like your 11.2g made up math.
You can't make a Vg diagram and skip the engineering. Your curve is from a fake aircraft, not even real.

The big lie is the Structural Failure speed at 425 KEAS. Why make up lies?

Sunzi said:

...The big lie is the Structural Failure speed at 425 KEAS. Why make up lies?

Click to expand...

Actually the persistent errors are two:
1) He keeps representing a line which is the safe lower bound of the area where the probability of damage starts to increase to unacceptable higher levels of probability as if it was an absolute "binary" - "yes/no" limit; AND
2) He seems to think that competent engineers will not see his error and/or won't call him on it - as if the engineering concept is unique to aviation. He is wrong and the principle is not aviation specific

ozeco41 said:

Actually the persistent errors are two:
1) He keeps representing a line which is the safe lower bound of the area where the probability of damage starts to increase to unacceptable higher levels of probability as if it was an absolute "binary" - "yes/no" limit; AND
2) He seems to think that competent engineers will not see his error and/or won't call him on it - as if the engineering concept is unique to aviation. He is wrong and the principle is not aviation specific

Click to expand...

What they don't get is that many of us laugh at their hype. "structural failure" for example is the point where the added stress is unacceptable for the longevity of the aircraft. Not a "velocity doom."

SBu said:

I suppose I could buy that if they were attempting to 'fly' the plane. As it was, they were trying to crash the plane. I think the phrase 'rather be lucky than good' applies well here.

It's difficult to fly a plane especially at those speeds, but any idiot can crash a plane. Were they good enough to point and crash at high speed? The answer is either 'good enough' or 'lucky enough.' I don't think the answer is 'didn't happen.'

Click to expand...

Well I see it differently than you because I spent 10 years as a young man crop dusting fixed wing. It's not as easy as you the layman makes it sound.

Because Hani's maneuver, as told by the Official Book of Tales, required that he low leveled across the front yard of the Pentagon. They tell the story, not I. For the story to be true, it had to be flown very specifically, in ground effect at speeds out beyond Vmo.

The odds of Hani doing that are zero.

Sunzi said:

You can't make a fake Vg diagram real by posting BS you google up. You can't use training Vg diagram to save your fake Vg diagram.
This is like your 11.2g made up math.
You can't make a Vg diagram and skip the engineering. Your curve is from a fake aircraft, not even real.

The big lie is the Structural Failure speed at 425 KEAS. Why make up lies?

Click to expand...

You're nuts. Did you not see the reference to Federal Aviation Regulations? Or are you just pretending?

Aircraft do not fly out past redlines of any sort. It just doesn't happen.

Yes it can happen, but it is an emergency situation. Limitations must not be violated.

Rob

I understand the validity of the VG diagram you present. I did a stint as production test pilot, so I had to work closely with the engineers on some issues.

Only laymen don't understand how it works. eace

Henry David said:

You're nuts. Did you not see the reference to Federal Aviation Regulations? Or are you just pretending?

Click to expand...

You claim to be an Instructor Pilot, yet lack the knowledge to comprehend pilots for truth Vg diagram is fake, a fraud. The reference to the FAR is proof pilots for truth Vg diagram is fake - any layperson can see that.

Henry David said:

Aircraft do not fly out past redlines of any sort. It just doesn't happen.

Click to expand...

What redline? The Vg diagram is fake, and the "redline" is nonsense.

What is the redline for a 757?

Henry David said:

Well I see it differently than you because I spent 10 years as a young man crop dusting fixed wing. It's not as easy as you the layman makes it sound.

Because Hani's maneuver, as told by the Official Book of Tales, required that he low leveled across the front yard of the Pentagon. They tell the story, not I. For the story to be true, it had to be flown very specifically, in ground effect at speeds out beyond Vmo.

The odds of Hani doing that are zero.

Click to expand...

Ah, now I know in what context to put your comments.