OT - Conspiracy Theory Stuff, Need Expert Opinions on Aircraft Characteristics

J

Jack 99

New member
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40758-2000May31.html


Couple of things. First, I remember seeing video of the alleged streaks shooting up into the air toward Flight 800. Am I just losing it or did anyone else see this too?

And then there's this, which is totally baffling (disclaimer: I have a limited knowledge of aeronautics, but this defies all logic):

"Computerized simulations by the board and the CIA in December 1997 indicated the streaks could be a flaming fuel tank.

The light appeared to be rising because the front of the plane had broken away and the rest of the aircraft, including the wings, shot upward because it was no longer weighed down by the forward part of the fuselage."

WHAT???????????

[This message has been edited by Jack 99 (edited June 01, 2000).]
 
Jack, try the below link and read the articles. The ten part series is pretty good and, from the limited information available, seems accurate.
http://newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/12/19/90358

I don't know what happened but am sure that it was not as released to the press. My quals for that speculation include; airline transport pilot, aircraft accident investigator, military test pilot, flight engineer and builder of my own aircraft. Sumpin stinks and it aint kim chee.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
When an aircraft's center of gravity (CG) is radically shifted fore or aft, the aircraft's pitch shifts in accordance. Losing the nose in a bigass beast like a 747 would cause the CG to shift to a point *behind* the center of lift. If the plane is being lifted from behind its CG, then the empennage rises and the nose drops as the plane pivots about the CG.

You can see this effect in B-52s. Due to the wingspan and angle, the CL is naturally slightly behind the CG, so the BUFF climbs nose-level or down.
 
Referring to: "The light appeared to be rising because the front of the plane had broken away and the rest of the aircraft, including the wings, shot upward because it was no longer weighed down by the forward part of the fuselage."

At that particular instant, there was still thrust from the engines. The engines are mounted below the wings, so there is a large amount of torque which would try to rotate the the entire mass into a nose-up position. With the nose gone, the CG moves aft, well behind the point of thrust; this would tend to tilt the entire mass into a nose-up position.

The theory seems to be that continuing thrust acting as I've described would move the plane upwards. It's a not-unreasonable supposition.

My questions would be about the length of time before the final explosion, and the amount of height which might be gained during this time. After all, with the nose gone, the drag would be horrendus, and I'm dubious that the fuel supply to the engines would continue to be at any full-throttle condition. Dunno. Seems to me it would be like opening a parachute! And if the engines throttled back...
 
Even with the forward section of the fuselage missing, the total thrust of the 747s engines at full power would still be far less than the weight of the aircraft.

The aft shift of the Cg in relation to the Cl would increase the angle of attack past the point of stall (+/- 15 degrees), hence the L/D ratio would rapidly become a negative number. Fly like a rock.

There would be some kiting effect due to the partial conversion of forward momentum to a vertical vector, but I think it would be too slight to be easily noted by observer on the ground.

Another factor is that these engines tend to suffer from compressor stall when subjected to very high angles of attack, therefore likely producing no effective thrust.

The Russian SST was lost at Paris Airshow simply because of a gross pitch change causing the engines to shut down.

Sam.......gotta do some diggin in my books.
 
Sudden gain in altitude extremely unlikely.

The records of three different radar sites indicate no sudden deceleration. The debris were found in a location predicted by ballistic chart for body falling from 800s altitude and speed at time of initial explosion. The time for the debris to fall to the water is consistant with the aircraft altitude at the time of explosion.

Following link is long but very good read all the way down. http://twa800.com/radaranalysis.htm

Sam
 
I hope this issue will be resloved by facts and not politics again.
Great topic and excellent resource referrals.
Unfortunately my govmint no longer has any credibility.

------------------
"Keep shootin till they quit floppin"
The Wife 2/2000
 
More input from an accident investigator who reported to Congress. http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/4/12/130801
Interesting White House tie in re the events leading up to and the investigation of the downing.



------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
Sumpin' stinks, and it ain't fish.

I wonder who was on that passenger list? Any friends of Billary of note?
 
I have a problem, and always have, with the TWA 800 explanation, as presented by the CIA. A plane heavily loaded with fuel, for a trans Atlantic hop.
How much Oxygen is necessary for combustion?
Oxygen comprises what, 17-19% of the atmosphere? With fuel, and enough heat, you have fire!!!
I've been told before, that if you lit a match in a gas tank, it wouldn't explode, because there isn't enough Oxygen, and too much fuel vapor. I really don't want to prove this theory, if you know what I mean. I need to get my Chemistry books out, and look up the Stoichiometry again...

OK, lets say the nose does get chopped by some explosion...
It's travelling how fast again, 550-620 MPH?
You've got this huge tube now traveling through the air, compressing air into the passenger compartment, with the tail still intact.(?)
Even if the windows all popped out from the tremendous internal pressure now exerted inside the cabin, why is the fuselage still relatively intact? And, presumably it's CG is now offset, aft of the wings.
Combine the CG shift, and the incredible drag created by the non-aerodynaic nose you now have, and this airplane should have broken apart before it even hit the ground.

Everybody remember the Shuttle Craft explosion in 1986? Sure you do..

Several years later, in 1990 I think, the NSA released satellite photos they'd had of the whole thing.

Since the eastern seaboard is a military port, waddaya think the chances are the NSA already has the photos in hand of what really happened?

How about EconoAir in the Glades? Suppose they have the shots of that one too? How about the last plane that just went down, in PA was it?

How about JFK Jr's plane? S'pose there's some pics of that one also?
Hey, wasn't he going to run against Billary for New York? If I were a conspiracy fan...

Gee, call me paranoid, but it sure seems like a lot of planes fall out of the sky on the Eastern Seaboard for some reason. Maybe it's the Washington Triangle. It seems like a lot of strange things happen to people who cross paths through that area.

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms;
History shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
-----------------
"Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, and destroy their rugged- ness.
Get control of all means of publicity, and thereby get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities.
Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance."

Vladimir Ilich Lenin, former leader of USSR

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited June 03, 2000).]
 
Actually, the match/gas thing is that a match tossed *into* a bucket of gas usually will go out. The situation for gas tanks is temperature-dependent; low temps -> mostly air in the empty part of the tank, high temps -> mostly fuel vapor. But jet fuel is essentially kerosene, which is much less volatile than gasoline. That tank would have to be quite hot to exclude all the oxygen.

The fuselage skin on airliners is pretty darn tough, because it is not only a primary structural element, it also has to provide longitudinal strength and stiffness whether pressurized or not. I wouldn't expect the fuselage to break apart in midair from just aerodynamic forces. However, in either the fuel tank scenario or the missile scenario, I'd expect a lot of damage to the fuselage.

Overall, I'm pretty skeptical of radar data in this sort of situation. Radar can give all sorts of funny data (we've all heard of the traffic radar clocking a house at 70 mph), and with pieces and parts coming off, who knows what the radar systems were actually measuring.

Overall, I don't think we'll ever have a handle on the truth. There's simply not enough trustworthy data. If it had been daytime and we had decent video to correlate with the radar, then we'd know something. But it wasn't, and we don't, so this will end up like the question "Who shot JFK?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top