Is there any way to cure a truther?[W:2707]

[Thoreau72]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Needless to say, I do not get to specific, and my job and duties now (Army, IT) is not the same as it was from 2007-2012 (Army, PATRIOT missile system). But for 5 years I was trained and directly involved in the PATRIOT system, primarily in the missile launching system, but also spending several years working with both the RADAR, and doing reconnisance for the unit (which involved among other things plotting out the "dead areas" that the RADAR could not see through - like mountains and buildings).

The majority of my posts here are in the military section, but several years ago I got pulled into these threads because somebody informed me of a post where somebody tried to post some bad information on how "RADAR injects" work, and I have been popping in and out of the conspiracy thread ever since then, simply trying to replace speculation and bad information with accurate information.



*sigh*

Once again, your claim of "theoretical" is a bogus claim, I was explaining how RADAR actually works. If you do not understand it (or do not want to understand it), that is fine. I really could not care less. It is certainly never been my experience that Truthers will let reality and fact get in the way of their silly conspiracy theories.

As for the second part, that makes absoluely no sense at all, so is therefore ignored.

I remember in the most general terms our discussions about injects as a training tool for radar controllers.

But I forget your general position as to whether injects were used that day or not. Were the comments made in the media regarding injects accurate, or just made up?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I agree we have been through this and you are dead wrong. please provide some proof of this mythical control problems at high speed by airliners.

I have already explained that the control surface area and the distance to center of rotation on airliners is optimized for the dynamic pressure at about 150 mph at sea level, for maximal control during take-off and landing. The dynamic pressure at 500 mph at sea level is 11 times greater than it is at 150 mph.

This means that a 0.5 inch stick movement at 500 mph would cause the same aircraft movement as 5.5 inches of movement at 150 mph. This means less resolution and less resolution by definition means less control. Why are you having a hard time understanding this?

By the way, dynamic pressure is caused by the oncoming airstream and is not what would be on the wings vertically during a turn. The dynamic pressure would only be applied to the control surface area protruding into it. So any notion that the opposite wing would somehow damp things out is not valid.

 

[Quag]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I have already explained that the control surface area and the distance to center of rotation on airliners is optimized for the dynamic pressure at about 150 mph at sea level, for maximal control during take-off and landing. The dynamic pressure at 500 mph at sea level is 11 times greater than it is at 150 mph.

This means that a 0.5 inch stick movement at 500 mph would cause the same aircraft movement as 5.5 inches of movement at 150 mph. This means less resolution and less resolution by definition means less control. Why are you having a hard time understanding this?

By the way, dynamic pressure is caused by the oncoming airstream and is not what would be on the wings vertically during a turn. The dynamic pressure would only be applied to the control surface area protruding into it. So any notion that the opposite wing would somehow damp things out is not valid.

You obviously have no comprehension of aerodynamics. take a pencil and place an axle of some sort through the middle of it. now spin it as hard as you can using 1 finger. Now do the same with a 10 foot pole and use your whole body to spin it. You will be surprised to learn that you can spin the pencil faster with just 1 finger than you can the 10 foot pole using all your strength. You see the problem you have is you are considering the wing a lever. It is to some extent, but there is a whole lot more going on than that. You are rotating a large and very heavy object around an axis no matter how you do this, 3 axis if you are speaking of plane movements. yet you insist on comparing this to a lever. it is wrong and doesn't work.

*edit* and we haven't even talked about the effect of dihedral, something else that works against your theory

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

You obviously have no comprehension of aerodynamics. take a pencil and place an axle of some sort through the middle of it. now spin it as hard as you can using 1 finger. Now do the same with a 10 foot pole and use your whole body to spin it. You will be surprised to learn that you can spin the pencil faster with just 1 finger than you can the 10 foot pole using all your strength. You see the problem you have is you are considering the wing a lever. It is to some extent, but there is a whole lot more going on than that. You are rotating a large and very heavy object around an axis no matter how you do this, 3 axis if you are speaking of plane movements. yet you insist on comparing this to a lever. it is wrong and doesn't work.

*edit* and we haven't even talked about the effect of dihedral, something else that works against your theory

It is actually mechanics we are discussing, with aerodynamic forces involved. The wings are levers relative to the longitudinal axis of rotation. It is the moment applied by the aerodynamic force on the control surface (spoliers or ailerons) over the wing lever arm that causes roll.

You are trying to say inertia would somehow come into play and keep the plane from rolling too much. Inertia is the propensity for an object to stay at rest or in motion at constant velocity unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. If an unbalanced force is applied to the wings the aircraft will start to roll.

In reality, it would not have any effect on an acceleration in a roll induced by a moment applied to the wing with a significant control surface force. Air friction might slow it down some but it wouldn't be significant.

The dihedral angle of the wings won't have much of an effect on what I am saying either. They would slightly increase the air friction effect on the wing moving downward as opposed to the one moving upward but that doesn't change the effect of air friction as what is gained on one wing is lost on the other. The restoring force due to air friction on the wings would be insignificant compared to a control surface force induced moment from any significant stick movement at high speed at sea level.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

You obviously have no comprehension of aerodynamics. take a pencil and place an axle of some sort through the middle of it. now spin it as hard as you can using 1 finger. Now do the same with a 10 foot pole and use your whole body to spin it. You will be surprised to learn that you can spin the pencil faster with just 1 finger than you can the 10 foot pole using all your strength. You see the problem you have is you are considering the wing a lever. It is to some extent, but there is a whole lot more going on than that. You are rotating a large and very heavy object around an axis no matter how you do this, 3 axis if you are speaking of plane movements. yet you insist on comparing this to a lever. it is wrong and doesn't work.

*edit* and we haven't even talked about the effect of dihedral, something else that works against your theory

Tony has more knowledge of aerodynamics in his little finger than you have in your entire corpus.

Back to the simQuag.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I have already explained that the control surface area and the distance to center of rotation on airliners is optimized for the dynamic pressure at about 150 mph at sea level, for maximal control during take-off and landing. The dynamic pressure at 500 mph at sea level is 11 times greater than it is at 150 mph.

This means that a 0.5 inch stick movement at 500 mph would cause the same aircraft movement as 5.5 inches of movement at 150 mph. This means less resolution and less resolution by definition means less control. Why are you having a hard time understanding this?

By the way, dynamic pressure is caused by the oncoming airstream and is not what would be on the wings vertically during a turn. The dynamic pressure would only be applied to the control surface area protruding into it. So any notion that the opposite wing would somehow damp things out is not valid.

It's always good to hear the engineering perspective Tony!

 

[Fallenangel]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Ah yes...the smell of science talk in the conspiracy part of DP....

Here is a nice reading material that covers a lot of the basic principles of flight stability and control - for all the avionic experts here.
http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/Notes/stability.pdf


EDIT: I almost forgot, you"ll need this too.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0112.shtml

Fallen.

 

[Menard_K]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

after 1610 posts, it has become painfully clear that there is, indeed, no way to cure a truther

and indeed, WHY should anybody want to?

 

[Quag]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Tony has more knowledge of aerodynamics in his little finger than you have in your entire corpus.

Back to the simQuag.

HD of course you would agree with Tonys entirely wron g assessment about aeronautics 'cause all you ever do is lie about it you are pathetic

 

[Quag]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

It is actually mechanics we are discussing, with aerodynamic forces involved. The wings are levers relative to the longitudinal axis of rotation. It is the moment applied by the aerodynamic force on the control surface (spoliers or ailerons) over the wing lever arm that causes roll.

You are trying to say inertia would somehow come into play and keep the plane from rolling too much. Inertia is the propensity for an object to stay at rest or in motion at constant velocity unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. If an unbalanced force is applied to the wings the aircraft will start to roll.

In reality, it would not have any effect on an acceleration in a roll induced by a moment applied to the wing with a significant control surface force. Air friction might slow it down some but it wouldn't be significant.

The dihedral angle of the wings won't have much of an effect on what I am saying either. They would slightly increase the air friction effect on the wing moving downward as opposed to the one moving upward but that doesn't change the effect of air friction as what is gained on one wing is lost on the other. The restoring force due to air friction on the wings would be insignificant compared to a control surface force induced moment from any significant stick movement at high speed at sea level.

Tony you have it all wrong Ive even posted a video for you to watch of this but you continue to proclaim loudly to the entire world (or at least everyone on this thread) your total ignorance of the topic at hand.

Not 1 single link to support your side just nonsense where you confuse wings with levers

 

[Fallenangel]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Tony you have it all wrong Ive even posted a video for you to watch of this but you continue to proclaim loudly to the entire world (or at least everyone on this thread) your total ignorance of the topic at hand.

Not 1 single link to support your side just nonsense where you confuse wings with levers

Try asking him to post his math workings here (and no putting numbers in the dynamic pressure equation isn't math work )..maybe he really does have some calculation to back this up but they are simply wrong?!

I even posted a nice little link that covers pretty much everything (basic) anyone needs to know about plane controlling and stability.

Cheers,
Fallen.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Try asking him to post his math workings here (and no putting numbers in the dynamic pressure equation isn't math work )..maybe he really does have some calculation to back this up but they are simply wrong?!

I even posted a nice little link that covers pretty much everything (basic) anyone needs to know about plane controlling and stability.

Cheers,
Fallen.

Surprise, surprise.

The aeronautic paper you linked to http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/Notes/stability.pdf supported what I said concerning subsonic flight, in that up through Mach 1.0 as the number increases the control of the aircraft becomes more difficult. See the bottom paragraph on page 25.

It also uses the term lever arm when discussing aerodynamic forces on control surfaces and the moments generated by those forces applied over arms like I have discussed. See the bottom two paragraphs on page 16.

You also seem confused with the term avionics. Do you know that is the term used for aircraft electronics? You are using it as though it describes aviation in general. You see when you try to act a little big for your britches around people who actually know something it shows. Sometimes it is better, if you don't know enough about the subject, to keep your mouth shut.

The calculations for dynamic pressure and the control surface forces involved on the wings and tail at high speed at sea level are not difficult and if necessary I will do them. However, this argument is so lopsided it is funny to hear. It is brutally clear to anyone who really knows something about it that the control surface forces at 500 mph at sea level would have made making the exact corrections to the City Hall flight path of the South Tower aircraft at two miles out, and hitting the tower dead on, an impossibility for a human pilot in an airliner.

 

[Fallenangel]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Surprise, surprise.

The aeronautic paper you linked to http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/Notes/stability.pdf supported what I said concerning subsonic flight, in that up through Mach 1.0 as the number increases the control of the aircraft becomes more difficult. See the bottom paragraph on page 25.

It also uses the term lever arm when discussing aerodynamic forces on control surfaces and the moments generated by those forces applied over arms like I have discussed. See the bottom two paragraphs on page 16.

You also seem confused with the term avionics. Do you know that is the term used for aircraft electronics? You are using it as though it describes aviation in general. You see when you try to act a little big for your britches around people who actually know something it shows. Sometimes it is better, if you don't know enough about the subject, to keep your mouth shut.

The calculations for dynamic pressure and the control surface forces involved on the wings and tail at high speed at sea level are not difficult and if necessary I will do them. However, this argument is so lopsided it is funny to hear. It is brutally clear to anyone who really knows something about it that the control surface forces at 500 mph at sea level would have made making the exact corrections to the City Hall flight path of the South Tower aircraft at two miles out, and hitting the tower dead on, an impossibility for a human pilot in an airliner.

Tony, few questions;
Did you read through the entire paper?
How much is 550 mph in machs on sea level?
And the final question/suggestion - please read Chapter 7 very, very carefully.

Fallen.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Tony, few questions;
Did you read through the entire paper?
How much is 550 mph in machs on sea level?
And the final question/suggestion - please read Chapter 7 very, very carefully.

Fallen.

Since Mach 1.0 at sea level occurs at 761.2 mph, 550 mph at sea level is Mach 0.72.

I read through most of the paper and browsed all of it. As far as I can see it should have validated what I have been saying here for you and anyone else who can read. If you think the paper contradicts what I have said tell me where and why you think so.

 

[Fallenangel]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Since Mach 1.0 at sea level occurs at 761.2 mph, 550 mph at sea level is Mach 0.72.

I read through most of the paper and browsed all of it. As far as I can see it should have validated what I have been saying here for you and anyone else who can read. If you think the paper contradicts what I have said tell me where and why you think so.

Yeap, it's roughly 0.72 Mach indeed.
Now read through chapter 7 that begins with a small paragraph that starts like:
"Everything that we have examined so far has assumed linear aerodynamics, incompressible flow, and rigid aircraft. In reality, of course, none of these assumptions will be valid at all flight conditions."

Fallen.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Yeap, it's roughly 0.72 Mach indeed.
Now read through chapter 7 that begins with a small paragraph that starts like:
"Everything that we have examined so far has assumed linear aerodynamics, incompressible flow, and rigid aircraft. In reality, of course, none of these assumptions will be valid at all flight conditions."

Fallen.

I have read through Chapter 7. The sentence you quote does not contradict anything I have said.

 

[Fallenangel]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I have read through Chapter 7. The sentence you quote does not contradict anything I have said.

You previously claimed this:
"I explained that the problem has to do with the mechanics of the design as well as the dynamic pressure. Control is also a relative term. I am saying the control necessary to hit the buildings manually would not have been there for a human pilot flying at 500 mph at sea level because the design is optimized for the much lower dynamic pressures of low speed flight at sea level and high speed dynamic pressures at sea level would cause any small overshoot to be magnified many times."

and this;
"The two turns within the last two miles for the South Tower aircraft required a machine be in control. There is no chance a human pilot could have made those corrections so accurately at 500 mph at sea level".
and more of the same stuff through out the thread.


a. If you'd look at the graphs, in chapter 7 and compare the 550 mph speed at sea level with the let's say 200-300 mph there is indeed a change in controlling ability however it is not as drastic as you were constantly trying to portray it.
b. "The usual result of the combined effects is that stability reduces as the Mach number nears unity and then increases, sometimes rapidly, to a higher value at supersonic speeds. The variation of CM for a typical aircraft is shown in Figure 7.6. To counteract the nose down pitching moment that often occurs on swept wing aircraft (subsonic jet transports—Boeing 707, 747, etc.) an up-elevator or stabilisation input is provided by a Mach number sensing system. This is known as ‘Mach trim’. If the nose down moment were allowed to take effect the stick force gradient would be reversed, and there is also a danger that the maximum allowable speed of the aircraft due to structural limits would be exceeded. The stick forces for such an aircraft are
shown in Figure 7.7.

So, nope, it's actually quite possible to control the plane at 0.7 mach.

Fallen.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

You previously claimed this:
"I explained that the problem has to do with the mechanics of the design as well as the dynamic pressure. Control is also a relative term. I am saying the control necessary to hit the buildings manually would not have been there for a human pilot flying at 500 mph at sea level because the design is optimized for the much lower dynamic pressures of low speed flight at sea level and high speed dynamic pressures at sea level would cause any small overshoot to be magnified many times."

and this;
"The two turns within the last two miles for the South Tower aircraft required a machine be in control. There is no chance a human pilot could have made those corrections so accurately at 500 mph at sea level".
and more of the same stuff through out the thread.


a. If you'd look at the graphs, in chapter 7 and compare the 550 mph speed at sea level with the let's say 200-300 mph there is indeed a change in controlling ability however it is not as drastic as you were constantly trying to portray it.
b. "The usual result of the combined effects is that stability reduces as the Mach number nears unity and then increases, sometimes rapidly, to a higher value at supersonic speeds. The variation of CM for a typical aircraft is shown in Figure 7.6. To counteract the nose down pitching moment that often occurs on swept wing aircraft (subsonic jet transports—Boeing 707, 747, etc.) an up-elevator or stabilisation input is provided by a Mach number sensing system. This is known as ‘Mach trim’. If the nose down moment were allowed to take effect the stick force gradient would be reversed, and there is also a danger that the maximum allowable speed of the aircraft due to structural limits would be exceeded. The stick forces for such an aircraft are
shown in Figure 7.7.

So, nope, it's actually quite possible to control the plane at 0.7 mach.

Fallen.

Those graphs in chapter 7 are not talking about controllability in a total context, they are only discussing the additional concerns of compressibility at high Mach numbers below the speed of sound, such as

- compressibility effects on the lift curve and aerodynamic center shift
- compressibility effects on zero lift pitching moment and zero lift angle

The problems for an airliner performing 550 mph maneuvers at sea level are due to its design being optimal for the dynamic pressure of much lower speeds (about 8% of what it would be at 550 mph at sea level) and the fact that any little stick movement at those high speeds at sea level would generate large aircraft movements. It isn't because of effects of Mach number and compressibility very much.

Flying an airliner manually at 550 mph at sea level and attempting precise maneuvers would be like driving a car on ice at 300 mph and trying to make a precise turn as the German engineer said in the video.

Using those graphs to try and make a case for controllability of an airliner at 550 mph at sea level shows you don't know enough about this and have no business in this discussion.

 

[Fallenangel]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Those graphs in chapter 7 are not talking about controllability in a total context. They are just discussing Mach number effects concerning
- compressibility effects on the lift curve and aerodynamic center shift
- compressibility effects on zero lift pitching moment and zero lift angle
Using those graphs to fully discern controllability of an aircraft is inane. You clearly don't know enough about this and have no business in this discussion.

Tony,
a. You forgot to mention some graphs for some weird reason...i wonder why?!?;
Figure 7.3: Aeroelastic effects on lift curve slope
Figure 7.4: Aeroelastic effects on tailplane and elevator
Figure 7.6: Variation of pitching moment with Mach number
Figure 7.7: Variation of stick forces with Mach number

b. Instead of claiming that I know nothing about the subject - show us the mathematical workings that support your claim that at 500mph (your original claim of 0.657 Mach) the pilot would not be able to adequately control the plane. (and no plugging in numbers in the dynamic pressure equation isn't math work).

PS. I ain't gonna re-edit my post every time you edit yours.

Fallen.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Tony,
a. You forgot to mention some graphs for some weird reason...i wonder why?!?;
Figure 7.3: Aeroelastic effects on lift curve slope
Figure 7.4: Aeroelastic effects on tailplane and elevator
Figure 7.6: Variation of pitching moment with Mach number
Figure 7.7: Variation of stick forces with Mach number

b. Instead of claiming that I know nothing about the subject - show us the mathematical workings that support your claim that at 500mph (your original claim of 0.657 Mach) the pilot would not be able to adequately control the plane. (and no plugging in numbers in the dynamic pressure equation isn't math work).

PS. I ain't gonna re-edit my post every time you edit yours.

Fallen.

I wasn't trying to mention everything in Chapter 7, only those things which you might try to use in your argument. The aeroelastic effects do not support your argument, they actually support mine, but are still somewhat insignificant. What is curious though is that you would even mention them. So I have to wonder if you even understand what aeroelastic effects are. Do you?

I have explained logically why the dynamic pressure at 500 to 550 mph at sea level would cause an item designed for pressures of 11 to 13 times less at sea level than that to have stability problems when trying to perform precision maneuvers with only human input. Do you actually need to see the control surface forces and moments they generate to roll, pitch, and yaw the aircraft at those high pressures and how little stick movement it would take to completely roll the aircraft at those speeds at sea level?

 

[Fallenangel]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I wasn't trying to mention everything in Chapter 7. What is curious though is that the aeroelastic effects become significant at 0.72 Mach so I have to wonder if you even understand what aeroelastic effects are. Do you?

I have explained logically why the dynamic pressure at 500 to 550 mph at sea level would cause an item designed for pressures of 11 to 13 times less than that to have stability problems during manual control and why it would not be able to perform precision maneuvers with only human input.

1. Oh well I tried... :shrug: ... for whoever else that wants to know about the real physics behind the controls of an airplane read this:
http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/Notes/stability.pdf


2. Tony, show the math workings that support your "logical" assertion that the pilot would not be able to adequately control the plane at 500mph at sea level.

Fallen.

 

[Menard_K]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I wasn't trying to mention everything in Chapter 7, only those things which you might try to use in your argument. The aeroelastic effects do not support your argument, they actually support mine, but are still somewhat insignificant. What is curious though is that you would even mention them. So I have to wonder if you even understand what aeroelastic effects are. Do you?

I have explained logically why the dynamic pressure at 500 to 550 mph at sea level would cause an item designed for pressures of 11 to 13 times less at sea level than that to have stability problems when trying to perform precision maneuvers with only human input. Do you actually need to see the control surface forces and moments they generate to roll, pitch, and yaw the aircraft at those high pressures and how little stick movement it would take to completely roll the aircraft at those speeds at sea level?

what a WASTE! People expend enormous amounts of time debating nits about the aircraft,
when in fact, NOT RELEVANT .... NOTE that there were NO airliners hijacked that day,
ALL of the phone calls from the allegedly hijacked airliners were BOGUS!
The super damning evidence is starring you in the face and you feel the need to debate
nits about airliners that were NOT there.

We the people have sufficient evidence to bust the emperor for indecent exposure.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

1. Oh well I tried... :shrug: ... for whoever else that wants to know about the real physics behind the controls of an airplane read this:
http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/Notes/stability.pdf


2. Tony, show the math workings that support your "logical" assertion that the pilot would not be able to adequately control the plane at 500mph at sea level.

Fallen.

You didn't try to do anything but insert yourself in a debate concerning a subject with which you apparently have little experience.

You didn't answer my question as to whether you understand what aeroelastic effects due to air speed at high Mach numbers are.

550 mph at sea level produces a dynamic pressure of about 26,000 lbs./ft^2. If an 18 inch wide x 8 foot long aileron or set of spoilers is moved up into the airstream at a 5 degree angle that will apply 27,500 lbs. of vertical force on the wing pushing it downward. If that control surface is centered at 35 feet away from the longitudinal axis of the aircraft it will apply a moment of 27,500 lbs. x 35 ft. = 962,500 ft-lbs. of torque trying to roll the aircraft. In addition, the aileron on the opposite wing would go down and create lift on that wing essentially doubling the force and moment. Air friction on the wings, due to vertical motion during the roll, is no match for this.

The stick movement to cause that 5 degree angle movement on the aileron or spoilers is about 12 times less than it would be at landing and take-off speeds. So there is a lot less resolution making it very difficult for manual control and the performance of precise maneuvers.

 

[Fallenangel]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

You don't know what aeroelastic effects are do you?

Nope, of course i don't.

Now show the math workings that support your "logical" assertion that the pilot would not be able to adequately control the plane at 500mph at sea level.

Fallen.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Nope, of course i don't.

Now show the math workings that support your "logical" assertion that the pilot would not be able to adequately control the plane at 500mph at sea level.

Fallen.

I did supply some math concerning what the forces and moments would be in my post above, which I was probably editing for detail while you posted this.