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

Showing Original Post only (View all)

William Seger

(10,778 posts)
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 03:29 PM Jun 2014

Balsamo Busted, again [View all]

Rob Balsamo continues to insist there is no margin of safety beyond Vd/Md (Design Dive Velocity), and as "proof" he has presented several versions of Vg (velocity/g-load) diagrams with a red wall at Vne (Never Exceed Velocity). My contention is that the conditions in FAR 25.305 are limit cases, not ultimate, and therefore a factor of safety is required for ALL stresses at those speeds. Balsamo has not been satisfied that the FAA and engineers on two professional forums agree with that; he persists in asserting that planes are designed according to his own misconceptions and faulty definitions.

However, here is a similar diagram, but from a structural engineering perspective, i.e. when a 1.5 factor of safety (yellow) is included for ALL loads that planes must withstand, not just the g-loads shown on a Vg diagram:



http://aerostudents.com/files/aircraftStressAnalysisAndStructuralDesign/reader.pdf

There in yellow, past the Vne, is the margin of safety that Balsamo asserts doesn't exist.

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
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 #0