Retired Airline Pilot sues NTSB for "Zoom-climb" data

http://www.twa800.com/lahr/lahr-amended.htm ^ | 7/27/02 | John Fiorentino

[JohnFiorentino]

Retired airline Pilot Capt. Ray Lahr has brought suit against the NTSB for release of the data pertaining to the alleged "zoom-climb" by TWA800. NTSB has stated that this event was what the hundreds of witnesses observed prior to the TWA800 explosion.

You can view the amended complaint in it's entirety here:

http://www.twa800.com/lahr/lahr-amended.htm

[Rokke]

This story becomes a lot less interesting when you actually read the NTSB report. I'll quote from the final report:

Computer simulations based on radar data, trajectory calculations, and airplane performance factors indicate that after the separation of the nose portion, the remainder of the airplane (including much of the WCS, the wings, the aft fuselage, and the tail) continued in crippled flight and pitched up while rolling to the left (north), ascended from 13,800 to about 15,000 or 16,000 feet, and then rolled into a descending turn to the right (south).

Someone can check my math, but doesn't that indicate the NTSB believes the aircraft climbed 1200 to 2200 feet? Considering it already had an upward vector when the nose seperated, that isn't out of the question. Remember, this is a 747 traveling about 550 KTAS.
Are you really trying to say balsa wood gliders are a good representation of the flying characteristics of a 747. You better tell NASA, Boeing, Lockheed etc, because they are spending a fortune building perfectly scaled models for wind tunnel tests. They ought to just run down to Walmart and buy a bunch of gliders.

[kylaka]

Nonsense. When a fixed wing airplane loses it's CG it assumes all the normal flight characteristics of a stone.
Immediatly.

[Rokke]

It is impossible for something to lose its center of gravity assuming there is gravity. Also, a stone ascends pretty well if that is where its momentum is taking it.

[sam_paine]

When a fixed wing airplane loses it's CG it assumes all the normal flight characteristics of a stone. Immediatly.

Since everyone's being a stickler, here...I think you wanted to say something like "once an airplane's CG abruptly and radically changes in mid-flight, it assumes all the normal flight characteristics of a stone."

Nothing can actually "lose" its Center of Gravity. Well, it can't lose its Center of Mass, at least. Well, unless it's a nuclear bomb.... Ok, I'm sorry I mentioned it!! 8-(

[secretagent]

The nose falls off and the plane doesn't lose its cg - the cg shifts back in relation to the center of lift, so the plane tilts up.

That seems plausible to this layman, and I read the debate with to see what other points I can understand.

Explain how the plane can lose its cg, or how a shift back would cause the plane to drop immediately.

[cpdiii]

With the center of gravity well aft of the center of lift the pitch up would be quite violent and would result in an almost immediate stall. With the front end of the aircraft gone it would approximate the drag of a flat plate object. In a climb attitude this drag effect on the open cabin would effect an upward rotation about the aft center of gravity that would be very very violent and would cause it to stall and also cause structural failure. When TWA 800 lost its nose it pitched up and then dropped like a rock. It did not climb 3000 feet.

[JohnFiorentino]

Yeah, now check the CIA animation vs. the NTSB animation. The fact is EVEN the NTSB was embarrased by the impossible scenario presented by the CIA. So they toned it down a little. Shaving off some of the more frothy top.

[Askel5]

Presumably if both wings had blown off the fuselage would have actually reached orbit.

Lol ... Thanks for that.

[JohnFiorentino]

What are YOU contending?........What was the timeframe of the independent review by the other nine metallurgists you state agreed with Tobin?......Did they perform separate examinations?....Did they write any reports?....please direct me to them.......OR did they do a "cursory peer review" of the metallurgical findings as outlined in the Brookhaven National Labs report?

You use the term "paralegal" with some disdain. What are your qualifications?......Other than cutting and pasting the same things ad infinitum.....making cartoons.....calling people "tin-foil hats" and "missile-huggers"......and dreaming up false scenarios of what I for example MIGHT be guilty of?

Have you ever once in your life apologized to anyone for your disinformationalist ramblings?

Perhaps I should point the readers to the posts wherein you accused me of posting to myself on another forum. And then when I CATEGORICALLY REFUTED your lousy allegations, not another peep on the subject emanated from your frothy mouth.

[JohnFiorentino]

Ah.....the "tin-foil acolytes"......ALWAYS a good point to bring up, when you are unable to debate in a civil fashion.

[JohnFiorentino]

It was a little levity. I am quite happy at how you managed to twist it. I would LOVE to see some wind-tunnel tests conducted, or whatever other tests the NTSB could do. I would also (along with Capt. Lahr) like to see the data upon which CIA and NTSB based their cartoon animations. I believe that is the point of this thread.

[Rokke]

I don't believe the NTSB had anything to do with the CIA video. It was the FBI that asked the CIA for help and the CIA produced the video based on witness testimony, not data from Boeing or the NTSB. Can you provide any evidence that the NTSB changed their numbers based on reaction to the CIA video?

[JohnFiorentino]

BTW, Asmodeus......isn't it YOUR contention that the CIA, NTSB animations are "untenable?"

[aruanan]

Ah, now we are into "theory." This guy's theory forgets that the tail surfaces are going to provide an aerodynamic force opposed to their being swung broadside into a 500 mph headwind.

Gee, if the guy's theory forgets that the tail surfaces are going to provide a resisting force against the nose-up torque, that is, by resisting being pushed down into the 500 mph headwind, then how is the plane going to suddenly climb unless the 3000 feet in altitude is gained over a much longer horizontal distance?

[Rokke]

According to NTSB data it took TWA 800 18 seconds to climb from its nose loss altitude of 13,800 ft to its maximum altitude of 15,000-16,000 ft (that's 1,200-2,000 ft gained, not 3000). At about 550 KTAS that is roughly 2.5 miles horizontal distance. Is that beyond the realm of possiblity?

[jlogajan]

According to NTSB data it took TWA 800 18 seconds to climb from its nose loss altitude of 13,800 ft to its maximum altitude of 15,000-16,000 ft (that's 1,200-2,000 ft gained, not 3000). At about 550 KTAS that is roughly 2.5 miles horizontal distance. Is that beyond the realm of possiblity?

Which is an average 8.6 degree incline over 18 seconds, versus the 25 degree slamming in 1.5 seconds according to the tinfoil loonies.

Until the loonies begin to account for the tail surface forces in a 500 mph headwind, they are COMPLETELY DISCREDITED!!!!! End of story.

[jlogajan]

when you are unable to debate in a civil fashion.

Ha -- bring us that tail surface force data for your looniefied theory. Until your maximum leaders start producing some theories that are full of obvious holes (overlooking tail forces in the torque calculations) you will be laughed deservedly out of court. Sit down.

[jlogajan]

aren't

[JohnFiorentino]

You're a little mixed up.....But I forgive you......The CIA DID NOT produce the video "based on witness testimony"...it produced the video in a vain attempt to "explain witness testimony"

As far as who used what to figure what out, that my friend in the burning question. You ARE partially correct. CIA contends it got info. from NTSB, NTSB says no. NTSB says they got info. from Boeing. Boeing says, it had nothing to do with the making of ANY animations. NTSB says, it can't release the data it used to produce the video because it is "proprietary to Boeing".....Boeing says, again, in effect, they have no idea what ANYBODY is talking about.....So you figure it out.

[JohnFiorentino]

.....jlogajan has spoken!.......all bow down before the mighty jlogajan.