Tweet
Originally posted by Gabriel
View Post
-
???? -
Besides recording flight data, TAWS recorded several malfunctions that happened in the last few seconds of the flight. The fault log is specific about 2, losing connection with the wings at 10:40:59 at TAWS #38 (over 100m past the birch), and gear malfunction at 10:41:02. There are 12 more recorded malfunctions that are recorded and Universal Avionics can extract detailed info about, but none of the investigative bodies requested it. The first recorded malfunction (lost wing connection) coincides timewise with Szuladzinski's assumption about an explosion in the wing. All the other malfunctions happened at 10:41:02, when the plane was at the altitude of about 15m, and according to Szuladzinski there was an explosion in the fuselage.Comment
-
Binienda did some more testing. The starting point was an actual section of the fuselage that was found fully open, folded out (pic 1). He modeled a section of fuselage and subjected it to forces during a simulated collision with the ground. The results were exaggerated because the section lacked the rigidity of full fuselage, but the deformations showed clearly that crushing occured but no folding out as seen on the first picture.Comment
-
The folding out of the fuselage can only happen when there is a force applied from the inside of the fuselage like in the testing of Sandia National Laboratories.Comment
-
Binienda also tested the whole plane during a simulated collision with the ground. In an upright position the plane breaks into 2 parts (first 2 pictures), in an inverted position the plane breaks into 3 parts (last 2 pictures). It is very interesting that when using the parameters from the reports (250 km/h and 12 m/s vertical fall) the fuselage would not break at all. He had to increase the vertical speed to 40 m/s to force the breakage of the fuselage.Comment
-
Another aviation expert expressed his opinion about this crash. Dr. Waclaw Berczynski, a design engineer at Boeing (over 20 years at Boeing, also worked for DoD), confirmed that Binienda's calculations and simulations are correct. He also explained that even if the plane lost 5m of one wing, this would have not caused a roll as described in the reports. The area loss would have been about 10% but the actual lift loss much smaller for most of the lift is produced closer to the fuselage. So of the 60 tons of lift provided by both wings, the actual loss would have been about 1 to 1.5 tons. Not enough to have any serious impact.
He also pointed to some other findings based on the photographs from the site. On pic 1 two men are holding a piece of the plane that has about 25 rivets pulled out. Every rivet has a capacity of at least 300 pounds. 300# times 25 gives 7,500 pounds or almost 4 tons acting on a very small piece. Such force can only be generated by an explosion. Pic 2 shows a part of the wing adjacent to the lost end piece. That part lost at least 200 rivets. That would indicate a force of at least 60,000 pounds, or 30 tons, acting on a relatively small section of a wing. Impossible except from an explosion.Comment
-
Northwester:
If I bring a report made by Dr Bineda that gives definite evidence that if you jump from a 12th floor you have absolutely no risk of suffering any injury, do you jump?
I have not seen the reports you mention, but there are so many things that look ridiculous...
An aileron has a very very proportion of the wing surface. I wonder how it manages to be powerful enough to roll an airplane inverted in seconds.
Now you (or whoever) say that loosing 10% of the wing area, and the outer part of which is the part that produces less lift per unit of area than the rest of the wing (which is true), will not have the power to roll an airplane inverted.
To begin with, that area is how many ailerons big?
Then, the tip may produce the least lift, but since it's the farthest from the CG the roll moment per unit of lift is greatest than any other part of the wing.
Then, that part also holds the aileron, so you would loose aileron control at the time where you need it most to compensate for the asymmetry.
Then, go tell to the Gol passengers and pilot that their airplane didn't fall in an uncontrollable roll spiral and that they are not dead.
Other point:
Crashing nose first inverted at 250 km/h and a vertical speed of 12 m/s (some 2500 ft/min) is not enough to break a fuselage.
Would you relay a message to Dr Bineda in my name? Tell him that HA HA HA!!!
Are TU planes made of some mysterious material unknown in the western world, or with some secret engineering techniques that makes it possible to multiply the strength without increasing the weight to prohibitive values?
Look this: This plane landed hard on its main landing gears, which are parts that are purposely made to absorb and dissipate hard landing zones. It was not inverted, it was not at 250 km/h, it was not descending at 2500 fpm, it did not hit nose first, and again it landed on the landing gear so the friction forces with the surface are almost negligible thanks an interesting invention called wheel (unlike what happens when you crash nose first and inverted in a soft terrain where the plane can dig in even if just a little bit).
25 rivets with a capacity of 300 pounds each equals to a capacity of 7500 pounds??? Sure. And my elevator has a cable that, each cm of it can hold 1000 kg. It is 20m long so it has 2000 cm so all the cable together can withstand 2 millions of kilograms. The elevator fell down the other day when we loaded it with just 500,000 kg. The stupid guys at the elevator company said that we overloaded it. It obviously wasn't. It's a conspiracy. Only a bomb could have severed such cable.
And the wing attached with 200 rivets that would hold 30 tons??? Stupid engineers that put spars inside the wings.
Until Dr Bineda and their friends (and you) takes a real TU plane, makes it slice a similar birch with the wing and the airplane keeps flying as if nothing had just happened, then rolls the plane and crashes it nose first, inverted, at 250 km/h and 2500 ft/min, and he walks away unscratched from an intact fuselage, I won't even bother to read any further because I don't believe a single word of what they (and you) say anymore.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
-
BoredOriginally posted by Fear_of_Flying
Institutionalized
Novice
Invents
Enticing
New
Data
AnalysisComment
-
I don't know if you have any engineering background, but the example with the steel cable is puzzling, to say it mildly. You could assume that the tensile strength of steel used for such a cable is 40,000 pounds/sq. inch which is equivalent to 2812 kg/cm2. But let's use your number, 1000 kg/cm2. The cross section of the cable could be 15 cm2, so the total capacity of the cable is 15,000 kg. In reality it is most likely more but that's beside the point. If you load it with 500,000 kg, you will break it. So the stupid guy at the elevator company was not stupid. You don't measure the strength of a steel cable by its length.Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
If you attach a piece of sheet metal to another piece of metal, be it a beam, spar, or any substructure, with a single rivet that has a capacity of 300#, it will take a force larger than 300# to rip it off. If you use 100 rivets to do the same thing, it will take at least 30,000# force to rip it off.
If the skin of the wing is attached to a wing substructure with 200 rivets, each having a capacity of 300#, and that skin is ripped off, then the force necessary to do it had to be at least 60,000#. Simple physics.
Binienda showed his work to a number of scientists from all over the world and no one questioned the correctness of his assumptions or results. No one so far presented any calculations that would contradict his findings. No one pointed to any errors in his experiments. The only thing he has to deal with are personal attacks that have nothing to do with his work.Comment
-
To make it very clear. If you hang an elevator on 10 cables, 15,000 kg capacity each, you will have an elevator that can carry 150,000 kg.Comment
-
Comment
-
You are absolutely correct. The same goes for the rivets. You can slowly peel off a piece of sheet metal popping rivets one by one and then you will not need a force that is a combined value of the capacity of all rivets. But when you have a piece of metal blown off in a fraction of a second, you will need that force.Originally posted by Fear_of_FlyingComment
-
You know well that every case is different. What you see here is a violent bending, caused by hitting a firm ground at high speed, that was enhanced by a fulcrum effect. Some of the connectors were probably first sheared or at least weakened and then subjected to tensile stresses.Originally posted by Gabriel View PostLook this: This plane landed hard on its main landing gears, which are parts that are purposely made to absorb and dissipate hard landing zones. It was not inverted, it was not at 250 km/h, it was not descending at 2500 fpm, it did not hit nose first, and again it landed on the landing gear so the friction forces with the surface are almost negligible thanks an interesting invention called wheel (unlike what happens when you crash nose first and inverted in a soft terrain where the plane can dig in even if just a little bit).
The software that Binienda uses has been tested and verified by real experiments. A real plane was crashed and then the event was replicated in the virtual world using the same parameters. The results were almost identical, number of breakage points, deformations, etc.Comment
-
Pic 1 shows the top and bottom of the left wing that were blown apart and found over 40 m from each other. Pic 2 shows the extent of damage to the left wing.Comment
Comment