rwguinn
7th May 2007, 06:53 PM
mankind has been flying, in earnest, for about 100 years.
Mankind has bee stacking stones and wood since prehistory, and using cement and concrete since at least the Roman Empire.
Simulating flight, as done by the good flight simulators involves many different dynamic forces, structural relationships and loads, all solved in real-time and displayed on a computer screen as an interactive movie. The forces are well-known, and all the interactions are calculated. There was an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (http://www.star-telegram.com/100/story/93653.html) today about why first flights are no longer as risky as they were.Lockheed Martin test pilot Jon Beesley praised the aircraft's nearly flawless performance. "The airplane," Beesley said, "flew and handled like we thought it would."
Actually, Beesley and the legions of engineers that spent five years working on the F-35 design would have been surprised if the flight had revealed some serious problem. there is a lot of effort goes into design and analysis.
"It's not like in the old days when you put a pilot in a [1950s jet] fighter, and [if he crashed] he got an Air Force base named after him," said Eric Branyan, Lockheed's vice president of JSF mission systems. It looks like the engineers know what they are doing with dynamic systems. They seem to know how forces work, and how real-life airplanes and the systems react to them. In the good flight simulators, with the realism turned up, you can even rip the wings off the airplane you are flying!
Structures have been around a long time. We were building bridges, abodes, and work space long before there were computers, and long before we knew much, if anything, about flight. Many of those buildings have been standing for over a couple centuries, and there are some churches in Europe that are very large, complicated, and old! Obviously, the engineers and designers knew what they were and are doing with static systems.
Why is it, then, that the twoofers have no problem believing the results of flight simulators, but not structural simulations? They throw comments about Flight Simulatoors around like they actually know what they do, and then call any analysis of the towers a lie.
Statics, after all, is technically the trivial case of dynamics: in dynamics, Sum(Force)=M*a. In Statics, Sum(Force)=0.0
Anybody have any answers to this "Technology Cherry Picking Syndrome"
Mankind has bee stacking stones and wood since prehistory, and using cement and concrete since at least the Roman Empire.
Simulating flight, as done by the good flight simulators involves many different dynamic forces, structural relationships and loads, all solved in real-time and displayed on a computer screen as an interactive movie. The forces are well-known, and all the interactions are calculated. There was an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (http://www.star-telegram.com/100/story/93653.html) today about why first flights are no longer as risky as they were.Lockheed Martin test pilot Jon Beesley praised the aircraft's nearly flawless performance. "The airplane," Beesley said, "flew and handled like we thought it would."
Actually, Beesley and the legions of engineers that spent five years working on the F-35 design would have been surprised if the flight had revealed some serious problem. there is a lot of effort goes into design and analysis.
"It's not like in the old days when you put a pilot in a [1950s jet] fighter, and [if he crashed] he got an Air Force base named after him," said Eric Branyan, Lockheed's vice president of JSF mission systems. It looks like the engineers know what they are doing with dynamic systems. They seem to know how forces work, and how real-life airplanes and the systems react to them. In the good flight simulators, with the realism turned up, you can even rip the wings off the airplane you are flying!
Structures have been around a long time. We were building bridges, abodes, and work space long before there were computers, and long before we knew much, if anything, about flight. Many of those buildings have been standing for over a couple centuries, and there are some churches in Europe that are very large, complicated, and old! Obviously, the engineers and designers knew what they were and are doing with static systems.
Why is it, then, that the twoofers have no problem believing the results of flight simulators, but not structural simulations? They throw comments about Flight Simulatoors around like they actually know what they do, and then call any analysis of the towers a lie.
Statics, after all, is technically the trivial case of dynamics: in dynamics, Sum(Force)=M*a. In Statics, Sum(Force)=0.0
Anybody have any answers to this "Technology Cherry Picking Syndrome"