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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

William Seger

(10,778 posts)
3. Sorry, Cap't Bob, but I have an unimpeachable source.
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 02:00 AM
Jun 2014

Last edited Sat Jun 28, 2014, 02:51 AM - Edit history (1)

He's a world famous expert on all aspects of aviation. His name is Rob Balsamo who posted on the Pilots for 9/11 "Truth" forum:

Yes, it is the same in all aircraft (not 160, but the meaning of Vne), which is what I been trying to tell you. Vne is the same thing as Vd.
<snip>
Again, Vne is the same thing as Vd. It is the end of the flight envelope and the start of the structural failure zone for every aircraft on this planet, and as you agree, it is determined by flutter.


And on the Above Top Secret forum (posting as NewAgeMan), world famous expert Rob Balsamo posted:

Basically, Vno was replaced with Vmo, and Vne was replaced with Vd on Jets.

Small/slower aircraft still use Vno/Vne because you wont exceed those limits as fast as you would in a Jet.

again, there is no difference between Vne and Vd. They are the same.

Vne/Vd is the end of the flight envelope and the start of the structural failure zone for every airplane on this planet.


Of course, there is some small chance that even a world famous expert like Rob Balsamo might not know what he's talking about, so it's best to check another source:

The velocity corresponding to the right-hand side of the V-n is called the VNE or the velocity never to exceed.


So, sorry, Cap'n Bob, I know you're desperate to be right about something here, but it looks like Rob Balsamo was right: For planes with a defined Vne, it is the the end of the flight envelope, whereas the modern equivalent is Vd/Md.



So, according to Rob Balsamo, I was correct to suggest that in this diagram, the point labeled Vne is the end of the flight envelope, which would be equivalent to Vd/Md today, and the green zone between Vno and Vne would be equivalent to to the range between Vmo and Vd for modern planes:



And anyway, if you had actually read the text that was taken from (and had a clue what it means), it would be obvious that the yellow zone is the margin of safety provided by multiplying ALL loads by a factor of safety.

So again, what is your basis for claiming FAR 25 doesn't mean what it says? Where are the test results that told you the maximum speed for a 767 is 425 KEAS? Why should anyone believe "impossible speed" from someone who doesn't seem to understand how planes are designed?







:
Maybe Billy is SIGDEV nationalize the fed Jun 2014 #1
Cult-leader wannabes are usually paranoid delusional egoists (n/t) William Seger Jun 2014 #4
Pilots for truth can't source structural failure speed of a 767 - failure again superbeachnut Jun 2014 #2
Beachy - do you agree with this person? johndoeX Jun 2014 #9
Sorry, Cap't Bob, but I have an unimpeachable source. William Seger Jun 2014 #3
Spin, obfuscate, deflect. johndoeX Jun 2014 #5
ROFLMAO William Seger Jun 2014 #6
When are you going to email the FAA with your claims Seger? johndoeX Jun 2014 #7
I've noticed that most "truthers" are hypocrits William Seger Jun 2014 #8
The only thing you have proven.... johndoeX Jun 2014 #10
No, I don't, and having to repeat myself so many times is really annoying William Seger Jun 2014 #12
"Uh, no I shouldn't if he's wrong. And he is.".... johndoeX Jun 2014 #13
Is that a "never?" (n/t) William Seger Jun 2014 #15
quote mine, who cares what the real defintion is, pilots for truth can find a quote to say otherwise superbeachnut Jun 2014 #16
BTW, is "EagleEye" one of your socks on your own forum? William Seger Jun 2014 #11
No he isn't me. johndoeX Jun 2014 #14
LOL, I don't recall even thinking about you since your last disaster here William Seger Jun 2014 #17
Hmmm... johndoeX Jun 2014 #18
U mad, Bro? (n/t) William Seger Jun 2014 #19
Actually... johndoeX Jun 2014 #21
A more recent face with a name William Seger Jun 2014 #22
lol... nice johndoeX Jun 2014 #23
Thanks William Seger Jun 2014 #24
"Thanks for the bump"? johndoeX Jun 2014 #25
You do know that SOME people will read past the OP, right? William Seger Jun 2014 #26
Of course - johndoeX Jun 2014 #27
Oh, by now, I know who your target market is William Seger Jun 2014 #28
pilots for truth make personal attacks on those murdered on 911 by speading lies superbeachnut Jun 2014 #20
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»William Seger - Epically ...»Reply #3