[cpdiii]

It painted parts of it falling. The aircraft was already in a nose up attitude with a lot of power on. When the front section of the aircraft broke off, the remaining section would have been tail heavy, lighter and still had power on. No problem climbing an additional 3000 feet. Which brings up the question on how they knew it climbed 3000 feet. Radar image would be a good guess. Although it is not a good example, remember when the shuttle blew up? The boosters continued to climb and fly around.

The turbines on the 747 are electronically controlled. When the nose blew off they would no longer have any electronic input. The engines would automatically go to idle in this situation. The aircraft minus the nose would pitch up violently due to the change of the center of gravity and flat plate effect of the fuselage minus the nose. I did some calculations and the flat plate drag at 250 knots would have been close to the thrust of one the aircrafts engines. This force would be cause the very violent pitch up. This pitch up would cause the wings to stall and and probable structural failure of the wing.

After that aircraft lost it nose it dropped like a rock. I do not know what brought that aircraft down but it sure as hell did not climb 3800 feet after it lost its nose. That DID NOT HAPPEN!

[Rokke]

"After that aircraft lost it nose it dropped like a rock."

The radar data clearly shows when the nose separated from the aircraft. The debris fields clearly show where the aircraft impacted the water. If the aircraft dropped like a rock, they should line up very well. They aren't even close. How do you explain that?