Posted on 06/20/2016 11:33:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
Easy is right! And no excuse for my not figuring that angle out for myself.
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.
No where near 1200 feet. There is no energy from anywhere to account for it. . . and the NTSB to this day refuses to provide their calculations about where that energy came from, and to explain how it could climb. It certainly could not climb without engines. Boeing disavowed both scenarios by saying the maximum climb rate for the 747-100 was 3800 feet per minute under ideal conditions and lift with the engines at 100%. Yet the CIA claimed that occurred in 18 seconds (which the math claims it would have to use ALL forward momentum at a maximum 9.7 Gs to achieve, which it obviously did not) and the NTSB claimed 1200 feet in 18 seconds (only 2.7 Gs but requires working engines which were NOT present) as that is within the working parameters of the aircraft were it complete. I think only in Hollywood could that airframe do that, especially with a mortally wounded Center Wing Tank as the cause of the unique explosion that blew off the nose, a Center Wing Tank that is also a Five Spar Box Girder than holds both wings to the fuselage.
There was also DSP data. It wasn’t fully analyzed until days later.
BTW, those “recording” were copies. The originals stayed on site. Any federal investigator could have had access but were also denied.
“Likewise, TWA800 gained altitude after the nose came off according to the NTSB.”
No, according to the CIA, not the NTSB.
Please see my post at #81 on this thread and . . . this other from another recent thread.
ML/NJ
“80,000 pounds when the nose section separated? How did that affect lift and stall speed?”
If you knew anything about flying you’d know that is an ignorant question. Those on this thread that know aviation know exactly what I am talking about.
•20:31:10 — Major Fred Meyer sees "meteor like" object flash across his field of view.
From the reports at the time, my first and long held impression has been that it was a stray from the Perseid meteor shower. Anyone who has seen a meteor clear their horizon at sunset/dusk will see the similarities.
Mike Wire and Fred Meyer were observing from points almost 90º away from each other. They could not have both seen a meteor coming from the same direction. While planes HAVE been known to have been hit by meteors, it is an extremely rare event. . . and for this to have been one beyond the plane on the horizon, every one of the witness who claimed to have seen a missile, firework, etc. would have had to have had the same general position to see the meteor behind the aircraft or close to it. That was not the case. There were people in about a 240º arc around the event as witnesses including some who were flying and looked down on it, and a meteor would not account for it.
Yes, I believe you are correct, but Clinton classified those in the "National Interest" and they are still classified to this day. No one has gotten a look at them beyond about the second or third day when they copies went to the White House.
Technically, all military radar is classified secret at the least. What Clinton did was forbid releasing the information, which was nuts since it is commonly released to federal authorities as needed. I was on both Flight 800 and Challenger analyst teams. For NASA we helped locate the shuttle wreckage, which was interesting because dear old dad was on the crew autopsy side of that disaster and waiting for that wreckage.
I saw or witnessed that exchange as was following that race. 0 will be a zillionaire just writing about how he and Michael scammed us and took the once greatest Republic down.
My Dear Old Dad used to be on the accident investigation teams for the Air Force for the aircraft he was responsible for writing the technical manuals for. . . I learned a lot talking to him. He'd write the technical orders for the changes required for the existing planes after they came to a conclusion about what caused the crashes. One for the F-86 was that they needed to add a washer to the screws amounting the engine to the airframe because the vibration of normal operation caused the engine to come lose inside the airframe and suddenly you'd have a rotating engine inside the aircraft, Oops. When my dad died at age 85, he still carried one of those added washers in his coin purse as a pocket piece to remind him that omitting small things could cause catastrophes.
I think the NTSB was very politicized during the Clinton era. They both came out with climb scenario cartoon videos, but the NTSB's was moderated by quite a bit over the one in the CIA's video. It still did not work out mathematically, and those presenting it on TV seemed to me to be embarrassed by it. What did you think?
“Likewise, TWA800 gained altitude after the nose came off according to the NTSB.”
No, according to the CIA, not the NTSB.
...
You’re wrong. Look at the NTSB report.
If you knew anything about flying you’d know that is an ignorant question. Those on this thread that know aviation know exactly what I am talking about.
...
Go and ahead and spell it out. Show us how smart you are.
The Eastwind captain. Thanks.
He was an excellent witness, but as with most eyewitnesses there are doubts about his testimony. First of all, he wasn’t sure if he saw TWA800’s landing lights or a fire. He also doesn’t know if he was watching TWA800 for two minutes or five minutes. He later refined his testimony to say that he was watching TWA800 off and on, not continuously.
He also stated he wasn’t familiar with a 747’s landing lights, which I find strange for someone with the experience of a 737 captain.
Boeing disavowed both scenarios by saying the maximum climb rate for the 747-100 was 3800 feet per minute under ideal conditions and lift with the engines at 100%.
...
That’s for a continuous climb. The TWA800 rear section climbed briefly and ended with a stall and ballistic descent, an entirely different scenario.
No, moon, it's for any climb at all. It is what the airframe is capable of doing under power, with the lift that is available from that wing and engine combination, at that weight configuration at that altitude. It's a bit more at a lower altitude and a bit less at a higher altitude due to air densities. There is NO WAY a powerless, truncated, out-of-balance, non-aerodynamic plane in stall can climb 3800 or 1200 feet because the plane will go into stall immediately. You are making a ridiculous claim, as did the CIA and the NTSB when they presented those cartoons. Their purpose was to convince the low information voters with smoke and mirrors. Apparently they succeeded.
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.