"Let's further assume (conservatively) that TWA800 had its throttles set at 50%Its throttles were at max, but that's irrelevent. The NTSB did simulations based on throttles off, climb thrust and max thrust and found there was little difference.
the equivalent of all four engines thrusting in the OPPOSITE direction at 161,200 Lbs!
What? How are windmilling engines in idle producing 161,200 lbs of thrust in any direction?
There are no forces being applied any longer to counteract any of these.
Remember the lift? It doesn't disappear until the wings stall, which doesn't happen instantaneously even in your scenario.
All energy contained in the momentum of the system will be applied in trying to overcome the drag. Gravity is INSTANTLY pulling the entire shebang downward at an acceleration of 32 feet every second.
That's not even true in the scenario you just described. The wings did not INSTANTLY stall, and its upward momentum is not instantly reversed by the forces of gravity. In fact, the upward momentum initially increases by the aircraft's initial pitch up.
What energy the plane had in its momentum is rapidly being applied to lift or trying to overcome drag... it is a losing battle.
You are contradicting yourself here, because you just got done saying gravity is instantly pulling the aircraft downward at 32ft/sec^2. That can't be true if their as any lift at all.
but the wings don't and go quickly to stall
It took at least 3 seconds. And that is 3 seconds of a massive infusion of upward momentum based on the increasing pitch.
All energy contained in the momentum of the system will be applied in trying to overcome the drag.
You are contridicting yourself again. You've forgotten your previous statements about lift.
Gravity is INSTANTLY pulling the entire shebang downward at an acceleration of 32 feet every second. The Upward momentum vector is overcome fairly quickly after lift is lost
These statements cannot both be true.
The Upward momentum vector is overcome fairly quickly after lift is lost... less than one second
Where is your proof lift was lost in less than one second?
You've proceed to disprove your entire theory with your table of data. After repeating several times that lift is lost instantly, your table shows the stall occurs at 3 seconds. Then, you completely ignore any momentum gained in those 3 seconds and assume there is no upward vector when you state the ballistic fall starts immediately after the stall. I don't know how you calculated terminal velocity since nobody knows the drag coefficient of a 747 without a nose is. Finally, an aircraft with wings doesn't fall ballistically. Even if stalled. Neither does a sheet of paper, a leaf, or the famous noseless balsa wood glider
absent a counteracting force
Which could be either lift or momentum.
First of all, Rok, momentum is NOT A FORCE!
Momentum is merely inertia, stored energy... It is the tendency of a mass in motion to remain in motion or ABSENT any force applied to change that motion. FORCE is the application of energy to an object. That inertia can be changed into a force called lift... but it DOES NOT ADD ANY MOMENTUM TO THE SYSTEM it can only convert it to a slight change in vector. In fact, the mass LOSES momentum to the extent of the amount of force expended for that lift. IT AIN'T FREE!
"Let's further assume (conservatively) that TWA800 had its throttles set at 50%
Its throttles were at max, but that's irrelevent. The NTSB did simulations based on throttles off, climb thrust and max thrust and found there was little difference."
The fact that the NTSB said their was little difference is just more evidence of their malfeasance. It is extremely doubtful that the throttles were at MAX... there would be no need for that. Nor does it matter since, according to Boeing, the engines will go to idle at loss of control signal.
"the equivalent of all four engines thrusting in the OPPOSITE direction at 161,200 Lbs!
What? How are windmilling engines in idle producing 161,200 lbs of thrust in any direction?"
I see you are also dislexic and logic impaired as well.
Rok, the ENGINES are no longer producing any thrust...they are at idle. When they were operating they were being used to counteract the 161,200 lbs of DRAG the air was imparting to the airframe! Remove that counteracting force and the entire ~161,200 Lbs of drag would instantly be unopposed.
"Remember the lift? It doesn't disappear until the wings stall, which doesn't happen instantaneously even in your scenario."
The lift is still present until the wings break away or stall. The evidence is that they went almost instantly into a stall... and ALL LIFT DISAPPEARED leaving the plane with no motive power and no lift: i.e., in freefall... or a ballistic fall.
"That's not even true in the scenario you just described. The wings did not INSTANTLY stall, and its upward momentum is not instantly reversed by the forces of gravity. In fact, the upward momentum initially increases by the aircraft's initial pitch up."
Rok... in physics, unless you are privy to some new force everyone else is unaware of, when a FORCE stops acting on a system, then all other forces ALREADY ACTING ON THE SYSTEM are instantly unopposed. Gravity is one of those things that is always on... take away the force that keeps the thing from falling, gravity makes it fall... instantly.
Additionally, the last sentence proves you know nothing of physics... momentum was not increased... vector may have changed but momentum was DECREASED. "trading velocity (i.e., momentum) for altitude (i.e., increased potential energy)" remember????
"You are contradicting yourself here, because you just got done saying gravity is instantly pulling the aircraft downward at 32ft/sec^2. That can't be true if their as any lift at all."
Only in your ignorant mind. By the way, ignorance can be cured... find out what you are talking about!
Even in the presence of lift, gravity is ALWAYS pulling the plane down... the lift just counteracts that force and adds a little more force of its own to increase altitude. Incidentally, the gravitational force is not 32 ft/sec^2 it is 32 ft/sec/sec... it is an additive accelleration. In a vacuum, a body in Earth's gravitational well will add 32 ft per second for every second of fall. According to your erroneous formula an object would be falling at 520 feet per second in four seconds when in actuality it will only be at 128 feet per second at the end of four seconds of fall.
"but the wings don't and go quickly to stall It took at least 3 seconds. And that is 3 seconds of a massive infusion of upward momentum based on the increasing pitch.
Sigh.
The plane was climbing at 33 feet per second at a very efficient angle of attack. If it continued at that angle, it could climb ONLY 99 feet in 3 seconds UNDER POWER! That rate of climb is the maximum rate of climb Boeing certifies the 747 for at 10,000 to 24,000 ft. (Boeing certifies the 747 for ~68 feet per second from 0 to 10,000 feet and for 20 feet per second from 24,000 up to ceiling.)
Take away that power and it will not climb much more. Three seconds is generous. A plane taking off from a runway is no different... take away the power and leave everything else exactly as it was and the plane will drop back onto the runway, almost instantly.
Rok, drag is quite powerful. Increase the angle of attack, you INCREASE DRAG because the plane still wants to go the way it is already going... so the angle of attack presents more of the plane to the wind. As to your "massive infusion of upward momentum" it didn't and couldn't happen. First of all, there was no "infusion": no energy was added. Secondly, the plane was climbing at 5%... for ever foot it moved upward it moved forward 20 feet UNDER POWER. Remember that drag??? Take away the engine thrust and the plane is no longer counteracting 161 THOUSAND POUNDS of drag... it is going to slow down rapidly. A landing plane puts its engines in reverse thrust (nowhere near as powerful as its regular thrust) and that reverse thrust combined with the drag is sufficient to bring that plane to a stop in under 10,000 feet. The loss of engines means the plane is instantly subject to a deceleration almost equivalent of the acceleration force the engines were using to counteract that drag. As he plane loses velocity, the drag reduces... but so does any lift. Soon there none of either.
"The Upward momentum vector is overcome fairly quickly after lift is lost... less than one second
Where is your proof lift was lost in less than one second?
The math says it. The plane was rising at 33 feet per second. Gravity is an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second. Take away lift imparting 33 feet per second of acceleration upward and gravity is the force that is being applied at 32 feet per second in the opposite direction. At the end of one second without power and with drag, the plane may have been at level flight... and falling 32 feet more the next second.
and finally:
'You've proceed to disprove your entire theory with your table of data.
Rok, you display your total lack of a clue. Contrary to your assertion, that table PROVES IT! It is based on the radar tracks of the falling plane and debris. The times ARE what it took for TWA to fall from its ultimate altitude, whatever that was, and impact the water. IT IS WHAT IS. Your assertion (hmmmm, that word starts with three interesting letters that may be appropriate) that the plane would not fall ballistically is contradicted by the observed plane FALLING ballistically. Even the NTSB agrees it fell ballistically. Why? Because if it "fluttered, flitted, wafted" or did anything like a piece of paper or a leaf or a falling balsawood airplane IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN LONGER TO IMPACE THE OCEAN! And it would have come down somewhere other than it did. It didn't. Ergo, there was no climb, there was no crippled "flight", there was no lift... there was only a plane expending what momentum it had overcoming drag and falling otherwise in a ballistic fall.
It cannot have happened anyother way.
What Lahr is asking is for the NTSB to SHOW US the "other way." We don't think (not believe) they can.