[Robear]

The tail section fell in the water, yet the engines fell on land. Which would you suppose came off the plane first. I don't know the aerodynamics of a falling aircraft engine, but it sounds like the tail section came off first.

[rit]

I am not sure if the tail came off first, or second, or third. It is lighter, so presumably could have come off at roughly the same time. It seems to me that the plane may have been nosediving at the time the engines separated, in order for the engines to fall within 2 blocks of the wreckage. Thus, one would immediately discount the early bird-brain theory causing the engines to separate while ascending.

[r9etb]

The tail section fell in the water, yet the engines fell on land. Which would you suppose came off the plane first. I don't know the aerodynamics of a falling aircraft engine, but it sounds like the tail section came off first.

Try this yourself: drop a rock and a piece of paper out your car window and see which one goes farther forward. Answer: the rock will. Drag will stop the paper almost immediately.

Now for "rock" substitute "engine" and for "paper" substitute "vertical stabilizer." The aerodynamics are roughly the same.

[gridlock]

If the tail and engines separated at the same time, one would expect the tail to land significantly behind the engines. The tail is subject to a lot more aerodynamic drag per unit mass than the engines. So while the tail will tumble and "flutter" to the ground, the engines will continue on like a pair of rocks, and will wind up quite close to one another. Think of it as trying to throw a feather compared to throwing a rock. Which goes farther?

Also, if it were an "energetic" separation (think kaBOOM!), then the tail section would have had a negative reletive velocity vector applied, making the distance between tail and engines even greater.

My two cents, everthing came apart simultaneously and fell in accordance with aerodynamic drag.