Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Moonman62; CodeToad; Doogle; bobby.223; ml/nj; VTenigma; GBA; Lower Deck
In your calculations how did you account for the loss of 80,000 pounds when the nose section separated? How did that affect lift and stall speed?

When we were told, by multiple 747 pilots, experts in that field, that within the space of 1 to 2 seconds of the loss of the nose, that aircraft was already in stall, there was no need for knowing the "stall speed" to figure out what was happening to that aircraft: it was still moving at a ground speed of 358 knots, ergo, that was the stall speed of that noseless aircraft in that position. It was falling, just like the one in your video.

There was ZERO lift pushing that plane up. What lift there was, was pulling it over backwards until all partial vacuum on the upper part of the wing was lost. The engines were idle, so there was no thrust to push it upwards with opposite and equal reaction (they could not lift an approximate 500,000 dead weight anyway with only approximately 264,000 pounds of combined thrust even if they were working at 100% full power; they are not rocket engines with huge amounts of thrust, they're not intended to do that.

175 posted on 06/23/2016 5:54:07 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]


To: Swordmaker

When we were told, by multiple 747 pilots, experts in that field, that within the space of 1 to 2 seconds of the loss of the nose, that aircraft was already in stall, there was no need for knowing the “stall speed” to figure out what was happening to that aircraft: it was still moving at a ground speed of 358 knots, ergo, that was the stall speed of that noseless aircraft in that position.

...

How many of those 747 pilots had flown an aircraft that had just lost 80,000 pounds in weight? And your stall speed isn’t the result of calculations, it’s simply derived from the conclusion you want.


178 posted on 06/23/2016 6:07:10 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies ]

To: Swordmaker

I agree with your assessment. Even with the engines at 75 or 80% for the climb the aerodynamics do not support the climb claims. Between weight and balance, and having the side of a barn exposed after the nose broke away that plane was not climbing.


182 posted on 06/23/2016 6:24:37 PM PDT by VTenigma (The Democrat party is the party of the mathematically challenged)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies ]

To: Swordmaker; Moonman62; CodeToad; Doogle; bobby.223; ml/nj; VTenigma; GBA; Lower Deck

To put it a simpler way, the stall speed of an aircraft that has the middle section in front of the wings blasted out sideways, while the nose arcs in a path to the ocean, and the rest of the fuselage and wings tilt upwards at an extreme angle is.... INFINITY. Wouldn’t matter how fast or slow it was going, it was no longer ‘flying’ in the aeronautical meaning of the word.


216 posted on 06/23/2016 10:39:25 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson