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

Creative Speculation

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

superbeachnut

(381 posts)
10. ..., someone made up some stuff, or found another internet journalist to quote mine
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 08:05 PM
Jun 2014

Last edited Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:34 PM - Edit history (1)

"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

Where do you find sources for so much BS? List them.

This is funny. Do you make this up as you go, or google some internet journalist to quote mine.

"In fact", was special.

Then the funny part, "based on light aircraft", just like your fake Vg diagram for a 767. Irony, or what.

Remember those days you searched for a real Vg diagram? What was that, 5 or 7 years ago?
Each airplane has its own Vg diagram in its Aircraft Flight Manual. I'll keep looking around for the 757. - johndoeX
Never finding a Vg diagram for a 767/757, you made one up.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188863
That was funny too.
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 #10