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 Editorials & Other Articles 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 [View all]

johndoeX

(268 posts)
5. Exactly Beachy! (sort of)
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 11:28 PM
Jun 2014

Beachy says - "1.2Vd is good enough..."

And this is the very reason Beachy will NEVER support Seger's interpretations of 25,301, 303 and 305 for margins of safety past Vd.

Unfortunately for Beachy, the 1.2VD requirement is based on "an increase of 20 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude" - FAR 25.629

Were the aircraft on 9/11 remaining at a constant airspeed and altitude while lining up with their targets?

Nope...

In fact, they were well past Vd and pulling upwards of 4 - 11g's (well past the Ultimate load requirements up to Vd).

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»Balsamo Busted»Reply #5