Wings and tailfins off
Funny, he had the landing gear down for a belly landing in water? He must have hoped to be able to make it back to shore.
Posted on 12/18/2013 7:01:10 PM PST by WhiskeyX
I’m not ready to say that, but I do think he needs to be asked some serious questions. The NTSB is supposed to treat the scene/evidence as if it was a crime scene.
Holy mackeral...there’s someone here who would appear to have a vested interest, personal opinion never was a convincing argument. Just makes me suspicious now, and I wasn’t suspicious at the start.
It all reads like an autopsy without a body...
Water conditions don’t appear to have been so bad, a heavy chop from what I can see, as a marathon water-skier, I’ve skied through worse.
Mind you, I think the most serious problem the HDOH now has is finding someone to replace her...who won’t squeal.
There’s something very fishy down there in the deep, maybe a giant angry octopus.
I can’t take the thousand word essays that attempt to describe something that can’t be seen...seriously.
PS. IT WASN’T A CRASH.
It was a belly-landing in water. There’s too much hype and too much conjecture - because of the poor quality of the reporting, contradictions and hyperbole.
IMHO
2 wings 1 fuselage 2 tailfins = 5
I think just the tide going in and out might do that...or the current.
When somebody spotted the wreckage from a helicopter last Friday (2 days after the crash) the articles said the plane was on the shelf 60-70 feet underwater. I would presume they had that depth either by measuring via radar or something like that, or else by just knowing how deep the shelf is there.
My first question is how you see, from a helicopter, wreckage that is 60-70 feet underwater.
Look at the article from AP, that is posted, with photos of the retrieved wreckage, at http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2013/12/this-is-strange-originally-richard-schuman-owner-of-makani-kai-air-stated-that-the-plane-broke-into-pieces-and-could-not-be-recovered-however-the-2472198.html
That article says that much of the damage to the body of the plane “is the result of battering waves as the plane sank.”
Compare that with the photo you just posted. Would you call those “battering waves” - strong enough to tear apart a plane?
The effect of waves doesn’t go very deep. See http://faculty.gvsu.edu/videticp/waves.htm If you go down below the trough of the wave half the distance between the waves, that is as deep as the effects of the wave go. Below that the waves don’t have any effect.
And waves cause objects suspended in the water to bob in circular fashion around a mid-point. There isn’t forward horizontal movement except where the waves are breaking. So while the plane was sinking it would have a bobbing motion only until it reached the depth at which the wave’s effects were gone. Beyond that point it would simply sink until it landed on the shelf.
Do you believe that those waves had the power to bob the plane so forcefully that the body was torn apart before it sank below the range of the waves’ effects? That’s what the AP would have us believe.
Wings and tailfins off
Funny, he had the landing gear down for a belly landing in water? He must have hoped to be able to make it back to shore.
PS. Some of the damage to the fuselage could have happened when they retrieved the aircraft and loaded it onto the deck of the salvage vessel.
Yeah, I think you’re right about that. They call it a crash but it’s more of an incident than a crash. That plane in the photo looks to be in pretty good shape.
And the photo looks to have been taken very shortly after the plane hit the water. That pilot may have seen the whole thing take place. Kawasaki talked about seeing that plane and knowing help should be arriving in about 1/2 hour. But some reports yesterday were trying to say it took 1 1/2 hours for help to get there. We know that’s not true because the incident was reported in the media less than an hour after the plane’s take-off. So why are they trying to make it seem like the victims were in the water longer than they were?
The reports talked about a military plane doing touch-and-go’s reporting the downed plane to the air tower. That’s presumably not this guy who took that photo, who was out for a joy-ride with his girlfriend in his private plane which then apparently hovered overhead until it was all over. So when did the military plane arrive and lay down the smoke flares (sorry I’m butchering the terminology)? What were the 6 aircraft that were in danger of running into each other during the rescue operation?
Another question I have. The survivors drifted apart, but it sounded like they were drifting farther out to sea. Am I understanding that correctly? If so, why would that happen? The tides should have pulled them in towards shore if anything, right?
Folks here were saying that the landing gear wasn’t retractible on water, which is why there was such danger of the plane flipping when the landing gear hit the water.
AND THAT'S GOT TO BE A LOAD OF HOGWASH!
ok, now what guarantee is there that the craft lying on the ground with it's landing gear up in the air is the same aircraft that sank?
I'm through with this, it's Hawaii and you can't believe a single word of any report you read.
Wind will move anything on water faster than a tide will. The lifejackets would have acted like a small sail. With the tide it depends if it’s incoming or outgoing. That photo of the intact aircraft was taken by the helicopter pilot and his girlfriend who first spotted the plane. You can see a few dots in the water quite a distance from the aircraft which I assume to be the passengers, so it didn’t take them long to drift away.
A salvage dive team recovered the engine from the ocean earlier this week. "The Pacific has had its way with it for five days," Struhsaker said.
So. Divers working below the wave base removed the engine before the rest of the plane was brought up. The images from another post of the debris on the deck of the salvage vessel tends to indicate that either they or the actual lifting crew were none too gentle with the rest of the aircraft.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.