Creative Speculation

... it's sometimes hard to tell where the ignorance ends and the dishonesty begins. It doesn't matter, though, because as I've said, the only way you're going to get out of this one is to gnaw your own paw off. Running away from the smoldering crater of this "epic fail" and telling more lies won't do it. Why do you want to start a new thread to direct people away from this FAA confirmation that FAR 25 means just what it says, and what anyone even remotely familiar with engineering principles would already know:

Thank you, Mr. Johnson; yes, that addresses my question quite well, whether or not Rob Balsamo understands it. And now, we return to the Rob Balsamo Show, already in progress:

> He gets a reply from only one person who states he is an "engine guy and not an airframe guy and cannot comment on aircraft designs."

That's the second time you've deliberately misquoted AlephZero ("I can't comment on specific plane designs" i.e. the 9/11 planes I had mentioned). Since you were already called on it once, this second attempt at distortion is just a lie. But to address the point, an "engine guy" would be a mechanical engineer rather than a structural engineer, but mechanical engineers would need to be just as familiar with the concepts of "limit" and "ultimate" stresses and how to use them in the design process to meet FAA requirements.

> After mind numbing discussions attempting to explain that the "Limit Loads" and "Ultimate Loads" described in FAR Part 25.301 were for... you guess it, Loads, and not speed,...

You're a one-man clown car, Balsamo. To anyone with ordinary reading comprehension, what was "mind numbing" about that thread was your abject inability to grasp the meaning of standard engineering terms, much less the principles, and now you think you can get away with just repeating your own misunderstandings for the umpteenth time. Since you were called numerous times on your deliberate twisting of what I said, right from my first post, this is just a pathetic attempt to hide behind your own ignorance. Anyone with any common sense would recognize that if you add a margin of safety to the stresses -- a.k.a. loads -- approximated for a given speed, then you would have a margin of safety at that speed -- which is the exact purpose, of course. You demonstrate that not only do you not know anything common engineering practice, but you don't even possess that much common sense, and then claim that your own lack of comprehension wins the argument? Too funny even for a ROFL smiley.

> ... and the fact that Seger only first heard of Vd just a short month ago after viewing our film Skygate, ...

Hmm, you seem to have a peculiar notion about the nature of knowledge and understanding. How long ago did you first hear the term Vd, and yet you still don't understand it?

> Seger attempts to find outside help for his creative interpretations, based on his obvious bias.

Yeah, asking for "outside help" from an actual authority is not part of the game you want to play, is it. If you had asked for some "outside help" before making that nonsense video, it would have been considerably shorter. And now, the best you can do to support your "creative interpretation" of standard structural engineering principles is to keep linking to a list that contains more flight attendants than it does aeronautical engineers, and yet ignore that nobody on that list has actually supported it.

> Seger then finally admits that Vd is not a load and is in fact a speed.

It really is as if you think everyone is too stupid to read and understand that thread, so you can get away with another lie. (Or rather, you think the stupid ones will still buy your video?) I corrected your misunderstanding of what I said right from your first misstatement of it, and numerous times since then. So let's say it again: If you add a margin of safety to the loads approximated for a given speed, then you would have a margin of safety at that speed. There's no wiggle room in that for you, Balsamo.

And then you post another Vg diagram. Again, for the clueless, with respect to the issue at hand, that diagram doesn't tell us anything that the Vd number alone doesn't tell us, which Mr. Johnson explains in his response: The Vd conditions of FAR 25.305 are the limit load cases, so they require a factor of safety to get the ultimate loads to feed into the design. If you ignore the requirement to do that, then there is no reason to think that you can meet the requirement that planes must not fall apart at the FAR 25.305 conditions. What the diagram actually says is that the required maneuvering envelope extends to Vd, and the rest of the diagram is completely irrelevant.

But I guess you're right that the game isn't over yet if you just keep posting the same nonsense and lies over and over and over. That's fine with me; I'll just keep posting the same responses and enjoy it for the entertainment value.