posted 03-25-2001 04:25 PM            

this is a Boeing 767-300. i am fairly familiar with it as i spend alot of time flying it. cant tell what airline it is because i cant see the tail.

it is a very popular aircraft.

if you measure the distance between the egines and the distance between the trails where they begin then it is fairly obvious that the trails originate from the engines.

i know some have theorized that the chemical, or aluminum (metal) is put into the fuel. highly unlikely as any cheimcal or biological would be adversely effected by the burning of the fuel, and aluminum would not be very healthy for the engines

posted 03-25-2001 05:19 PM            

Okay, here's another. It is pretty small though...

here's the orginal video still...

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/cgi-bin/db-search.cgi?template=img-detail&dbname=img&key2=621&action=searchdbdisplay

posted 03-25-2001 06:55 PM            

Any way, the following photos are what I was talking about. It seems nobody but Carnicom as of yet has photos like these showing massive trails that do not align with engines. Notice on one of the photos that there even appears to be spray nozzles at regular intervals along the wingspan, and the trail seems to further divide into many little striations. I wish somebody could get more photos like these so we could get past the arguments that Carnicom had these doctored in some way.

posted 03-25-2001 09:56 PM            

quote:

---

but my difficulty with it is that the trails are perfectly aligned with the engines

---

posted 03-25-2001 10:05 PM            

i will be the first one to admit if i make a mistake. i was not aware of the patent for the aluminum. that is a new one to me. up until now, metal particles in jet engines was not a good thing.

i dont think that a connection has been made at this point but it is a start.

thermit, your second aircraft is a 767-200. just a slightly shorter fuselage than the
-300.

Cy, of all the "chemtrail" photos i have seen these are the most difficult to explain. most likely vapor being formed on top of the wing from the lift being generated. you see this alot at lower altitudes escpecially on take-off on very moist days.

posted 03-25-2001 10:26 PM            

I'm no mechanical engineer, but even I could conceive of a simple piping/nozzle system that might not interfere with the ailerons or fowl the fowler flaps (ha ha)...when they are not deployed in cruising flight, that is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most minor course corrections in flight on large aircraft achieved by spoilers on the top of the wing (as opposed to ailerons) anyway?

Such a plumbing system might even be external to the wing, and cause a bit of drag, yet not damage the lift and still be cost effective to retrofit. Now a tanker system in an aircraft not normally designed to be a tanker is another story altogether (as far as costs go)...so assuming a huge budget, these might be very customized systems indeed!

posted 03-26-2001 01:32 AM            

"I think the inventor claims that this fuel with aluminum additive can be used in any turbine engine."

well not according to the docs that i have seen on another web site.

"but even I could conceive of a simple piping/nozzle system that might not interfere with the ailerons or fowl the fowler flaps (ha ha)...when they are not deployed in cruising flight, "

you need ailerons during all phases of flight. also, the size of aircraft that we are talking about (tankers, airliners, whatever) have both inboard and outboard ailerons.

if you look at these pictures closely, it looks as if the substance, whatever it is, is coming from the entire trailing edge of the wings. this does not seem feasible to me. not only that, why would you want to? also, 95% of all the chemtrail pics are not of this type. we need to pick one and concentrate on that. i would be willing to say that these need a hard look at if everyone else here would stop posting pics of planes with the same amount of trails as engines.

"Such a plumbing system might even be external to the wing, and cause a bit of drag, yet not damage the lift"

cy, the wings on jet aircraft are unbelievably sensitive. why do you think so much attention is payed to a light dusting of snow on the wings. any system that spanned the entire wing would have major effects on the aircraft. of course i am talking about a retrofitted aircraft. i suppose you could design an aircraft for this but i have yet to see a pic of an unidentifiable aircraft.

"but aren't most minor course corrections in flight on large aircraft achieved by spoilers on the top of the wing (as opposed to ailerons) anyway?"

posted 03-26-2001 02:14 AM            

I'm not so sure you can make the 95% comments, because to tell you the truth, I haven't seen very many close-up pics of the spray aircraft. I don't think we know for sure that most of the planes leaving the persistent contrails wouldn't look like the Carnicom photos when viewed close-up and personal. That's why I hope more people can send in telephoto shots so we can get an idea for where the trend lies.

"cy, the wings on jet aircraft are unbelievably sensitive. why do you think so much attention is payed to a light dusting of snow on the wings. any system that spanned the entire wing would have major effects on the aircraft. of course i am talking about a retrofitted aircraft. i suppose you could design an aircraft for this but i have yet to see a pic of an unidentifiable aircraft."

Now you're talking about snow which can stick like rime or clear icing and interferes with the upper surface boundary layer of the wing, and I do agree...it doesn't take much of that stuff to cause boundary layer separation, destroy lift, and turn a perfectly good airplane into a rock...but I was talking about a small diameter tubing spanning the lower surface near the flaps and ailerons. I'm not so sure that it would have as strong as effect in these locations since they are not as critical for producing lift.....but then, I’m no aerodynamic engineer.. ...I also don’t think it would be unusual to see identifiable aircraft configurations. I would think a sprayplane could be anything from a KC-135, a DC-10 to a Boeing 767...so it would be reasonable to expect that the design would always be recognizable. They’re not going to reinvent the wheel.

It seems to me, a spray plane like this would probably require extensive modifications anyway, so I don't see the problem with putting the plumbing inside the wing as well. I think it would be a fairly efficient design to have the spray come from the entire span of the wing......you cover more sky that way...sort of like using a bigger lawnmower!

By the way, if you've found those docs on that patent...then by all means copy them here....I'm curious about that patent too, now that we've brought it up.

posted 03-26-2001 09:51 AM            

"I think it would be a fairly efficient design to have the spray come from the entire span of the wing......you cover more sky that way...sort of like using a bigger lawnmower!"

this goes to the "logic" issue. in other words, why would you do it this way, if there is an easier way to do it.
i disagree with your above statement. it would be much simpler to have just 2 nozzles, one on each wing tip. if you had the same volume pumping through the system then you would would cover the same amount of sky as a span-wise system.

posted 03-26-2001 10:01 AM            

We might me witnessing an evolving spray technology in progress. They may have even tried both configurations.

If I were "them" I would go with the twin trail configuration as well, and like Thermit says, line the nozzles up with the engines to make them appear to be normal contrails, and have "plausible deniability". This may be exactly what they have done after attempting several configurations.

posted 03-26-2001 10:29 AM            

by the way, i know that no one else cares about spoilers and such, but just for you.

the "spoilers" actually are dual purpose. they augment the ailerons in the roll axis when the airspeed is low enough that the ailerons do not have enough authority on their own. when they operate in this mode, the spoilers on each wing operate seperately. in other words, if you are banking right, the spoilers on the right wing will deploy but the left wing spoilers will remain stowed.

these panels also operate as "speedbrakes". they can be deployed either in the air or on the ground to increase drag for the purpose of slowing up the aircraft or increasing the descent rate.

they also can operate in both modes at the same time.

posted 03-26-2001 11:58 AM            

Here’s what I said when we were talking about the speed brake on fighters (I hope you don’t mind me posting this LTC....I just though it was synchronistic):

“
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:54:47 -0800 (PST) &&
From: Jason Block Address | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: F-15 speed brake deployed
To: WILLIAM SCHNEIDER

I've seen these at airshows. Airliners use spoilers on the wings which act as speed brakes and destroy lift on the upper surface of the wing. These are also used in place of, and in combination with ailerons for small course corrections.
My pet parrot Taco, has a speed brake of sorts that pops up behind her head.....(although I've never seen vortices coming off Taco! :~)

posted 03-26-2001 06:31 PM            

Hey, I like aircraft. I like their shapes. I like their physics. I love the challenge and exhilaration of flight. I like the people who fly them. There is still a piece of me that marvels at an aircraft in this modern day in age, like the Write Bros. at KittyHawk every time I see one slip the surly bonds of Earth.

So sue me.

You ladies are free to start your own thread and even your own free message board at Yahoo or anywhere else, God help you...but give me a break...I find this discussion fascinating....right up to the part where you start blaming the world for not conforming to your standards and limited viewpoint. Good way to kill a productive thread if I ever saw one.

I think the study of the aircraft which might possibly be doing the spraying is incredibly important. You might not be able to understand it...you might disagree....that's fine. There are other boards and other threads on this board where plenty of people share your attitude. But, trust me when I say; you do your cause a dis-service by going negative and critical of others, simply because an approach to solving a problem might not fit your clique.

I don’t want to put words in Mark’s keyborad, but it has been my impression that he does not share your attitude...so be careful what you assume.


[Edited 1 times, lastly by cydoniaquest on 03-26-2001]