Creative Speculation

Last edited Wed May 28, 2014, 08:11 AM - Edit history (1)

And they claim "Troofers" are unable to admit when they are wrong...? wow.

I have seen some duhbunkers try to tap dance when proven wrong, but Seger, you take the cake.

I won't bother to waste my time refuting all your gish-galloping claims... so I'll keep this brief, especially given the fact that you are incapable of admitting when you make a mistake.

Again, your claim - "The way the engineers assured the planes could fly at their Vd velocities WITHOUT falling apart is by adding a 50% margin of safety." http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1135&pid=7451

I have bolded the pertinent parts of your sentence. No where did you refer to "loads" in your initial post. Are people supposed to read your mind now?

This would interpret to any normal person who understands English, that your claim of "adding a 50% margin of safety" applies to your subject "Vd velocities".

It wasn't until I told you that your "50% margin of safety" claim was wrong that you obviously did more investigoogling (or perhaps asked one of your "eggspurts&quot , you then found out that the "50% margin of safety" is in fact in addition to load and not velocity, when you started your tap dance.

You were wrong, we understand. You are incapable of admitting a mistake.

So now that I have educated you, and that the only "margin of safety" added to Vd is actually 15% for transport category aircraft (20% under Part 23), and not "50%" as you first claimed, perhaps you can find the relevant FAR and understand why it does not apply to an aircraft which is maneuvering, nor is such a margin included in a VG diagram.

Are you aware that the "50% margin of Safety" for G loads are in fact included in a VG Diagram?

Example -

(just a quick search I did for a VG Diagram... and no, it's not fake, right click the image for the source)
[img][/img]

G loads for the Utility category are 4.4 G. Notice the margin of safety up to 6.6G. There is your additional "50%".

Why isn't the extra 15% (or 20%) for Vd also included?

I know why... but... I'll let that bake your noodle for a bit..

The answer will also give you the reason why such a theoretical margin was not included in our presentation, yet numerous examples of precedent... were.

I got a really good laugh out of the fact he thought the flutter experience by the A380 Test Crew was due to the fact it wasn't a Boeing.

Hey Seger, how can this A380 experience flutter prior to Vd, and had to abort the test due to structural damage caused by flutter prior to Vd, if they are required to have a flutter free margin of 15% above Vd?

I know, it's because it's not a Boeing, right? At least, that is what you claimed. Very professional response for someone who claims to understand engineering. [img][/img]


For anyone else who would like the answer, feel free to email us through the P4T website and I will be happy to provide you with the relevant "flutter free" FAR and the reasons why it does not apply to aircraft maneuvering... I personally like to see Seger tap dance and twist in the wind..