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]

William Seger

(10,810 posts)
8. LOL, bad guess
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 07:00 PM
Jun 2014

I found a clearer version of the graphic:



The blurred text just says "Indicated air speed, IAS" (and I'll be looking forward to your admission that you were wrong ). Your assertion that the yellow zone is just the difference between Vne and Vd is just that, an unfounded assertion.

I claim that the yellow zone is the margin of safety that results from applying a 1.5 factor of safety to ALL the loads, not just the g-loads, just as FAR 25 requires. That claim is based on what FAR 25 says about limit and ultimate loads and the confirmation from the FAA that 25.305 specifies limit conditions. As always, your counter-claim is based on nothing but your own assertions and repeated misinterpretation of FAR requirements. You persist in ignoring that FAR 25 at the time required planes to be flutter-free up to 1.2 Vd, which wouldn't make any sense -- and would be impossible to meet! -- if Vd was the ultimate case.

And you have yet to substantiate a single claim that you have made about "impossible speeds," most especially including any relevant technical specification or any actual test results. You don't have the nerve to post your claims about 25.305 being ultimate cases anywhere that an engineer can comment, nor to ask the FAA yourself.

On point after point, you have demonstrated that you don't understand this stuff well enough to even discuss it intelligently. Instead, you persist in simply pretending to know the maximum speed of a 767 and make ridiculous claims about plane substitutions for no apparent purpose. Instead of proving your claims, you insist that they are valid unless someone can prove them wrong. I have done that. The technical game is long since over, but I'll keep up this posting game as long as you like.






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 #8