Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Previous accidents with nose-down impact into water / MH370

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Previous accidents with nose-down impact into water / MH370

    I am looking for any video/photos of a nose-down impact into water.
    MH370 is said to have dove straight down nearly vertical, and that mysteriously resulted in "minimal damage"

    1995 Toronto Air show crash:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o6PitZEmMI

    Any evidence out there that a plane can have a high impact into water nose down, and not break up into tiny pieces like this one did:
    https://images.thestar.com/pf9omNf6d...s/cne-1995.jpg
    You can see lots of tiny pieces in the high resolution photo.

    This is what CNN posted from an expert into fluid dynamics:
    https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/21/us/ma...ies/index.html
    “Simply put, a plane hitting the water at an angle would scatter its parts across the surface of the water. But one hitting at a near-vertical angle would shoot into the water with minimal damage and zoom straight to the bottom.”

    Is there something miraculous about near-vertical.. To me, that just means more breakage, more crumpling all the energy going into breaking parts, almost all of it. Instead of dissipating into sliding(slowing down due to water/air friction), it dissipates into crushing.
    And had the Nimrod in the video been pointed more straight down, would it have suffered less damage?

  • #2
    I’ve had a read and tried looking into it but to me I would say the more vertical an impact was, the greater the damage to the object, especially a high speed aircraft. The only thing I can think of that might come close to that is the wreckage may be more localised in a smaller region with a more vertical impact. In saying that I’m no expert and certainly not into fluid dynamics but this is just my take on it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jordan Williams View Post
      I’ve had a read and tried looking into it but to me I would say the more vertical an impact was, the greater the damage to the object, especially a high speed aircraft. The only thing I can think of that might come close to that is the wreckage may be more localised in a smaller region with a more vertical impact. In saying that I’m no expert and certainly not into fluid dynamics but this is just my take on it.
      That's exactly what I thought. It will be localized, but anything that floats will still come up and currents will spread everything. I think basic high school physics is enough.. I'm baffled by this so called expert in fluid dynamics. Maybe he has absolutely no physics experience to realize fuselage that is about 2mm thick breaks up quite easily during massive deceleration that it wasn't designed for.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by caracal View Post
        That's exactly what I thought. It will be localized, but anything that floats will still come up and currents will spread everything. I think basic high school physics is enough.. I'm baffled by this so called expert in fluid dynamics. Maybe he has absolutely no physics experience to realize fuselage that is about 2mm thick breaks up quite easily during massive deceleration that it wasn't designed for.
        Very true, I can see in other scenarios how an object travelling vertical may have less damage to it and as described all of the components sink to the bottom together, however, at the speeds, size and weight of any aircraft especially a Boeing 777 I would highly doubt the theory the expert has stated would apply to this kind of event.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by caracal View Post
          MH370 is said to have dove straight down nearly vertical, and that mysteriously resulted in "minimal damage"
          Yes, "is said" because someone did say that. But that is 100% BS.

          --- 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


          • #6
            try use youtube !

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              Yes, "is said" because someone did say that. But that is 100% BS.
              What's puzzling is that it's not just anybody who said that, it's the ATSB.
              https://www.france24.com/en/20161102...ines-australia

              "It also said satellite communications from the aircraft were consistent with it being in a "high and increasing rate of descent" when it vanished, colloquially known as a death dive."

              And consequently, search areas and satellite interpretations were picked based on this scenario.. Had they considered that someone was at the controls, they could've come up with different search areas. Way too late now, this had to be done in the initial days when flying over water and with satellite imagery.

              Also, with all the technology we have, you'd think someone would've been smart enough to drop a bunch of buoys after the disappearance and track where they end up... then when any pieces are found, their path can be traced back using the collected data.. there are lots of buoys sending data all the time though. I'm not sure why the modelling has failed though.. the last search was based on ocean currents and resulted in nothing.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by caracal View Post
                What's puzzling is that it's not just anybody who said that, it's the ATSB.
                The BS part is not as much the "near-vertical dive". It is the "minimal damage" part.
                And "high and increasing" doesn't mean "near vertical" either.
                And, coming from France24, "death dive" is probably a bad English translation of a probably bad French translation of the original English "graveyard spiral", what is how what the ATSB described is colloquially known.

                Also, with all the technology we have, you'd think someone would've been smart enough to drop a bunch of buoys after the disappearance and track where they end up... then when any pieces are found, their path can be traced back using the collected data.. there are lots of buoys sending data all the time though. I'm not sure why the modelling has failed though.. the last search was based on ocean currents and resulted in nothing.
                That was done. Hundreds of buoys were deployed. When the flaperon was found, they tested a flaperon replica together with the buoys that they had used and found that they behaved differently (how much of the drift was caused by the water currents and how much by the wind). Even whether the flaperon was floating one side up or the other side up made a difference. So they made dozens of sensors-loaded buoys replicas of the flaperon and dropped them again. The conclusion was where the flaperon was found was consistent with the search zone, and a much alrger zone indeed. And there is nothing much better that can be done with buoys. You see, you drop dozens of buoys very close one to another in the zone of the accident, and 1 year later they are hundreds of miles apart one from another. The opposite is also true: You drop dozens of buoys hundreds of miles one from another, and one year later some of them may end up very close one to another, so it is impossible to trace back the drift with any degree of precision. So they used conditional Bayesian probability analysis to combine the highest confidence area based on the flight performance, the final descent mode, the satellite shifts in time and frequency, and where the debris showed up.

                Unfortunately, the plane was not found in that area. I still have doubts if the plane is really not in that area or if it is but was missed in the search. The investigators are highly confident that it would have been found if it was in the search area. But I know that a very high-speed, very steep crash may leave very few parts bigger than a few inches, and those parts may be dispersed over many hundreds of feet by when they reach the bottom of the ocean.

                --- 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


                • #9
                  I think there are a lot of different factors that will affect the breakup and it's pretty hard to speculate on what might have occurred. Vertical speed, horizontal speed, water surface, and attitude of the object entering the water will all come into play. Too many variables.

                  Unfortunately, the plane was not found in that area. I still have doubts if the plane is really not in that area or if it is but was missed in the search. The investigators are highly confident that it would have been found if it was in the search area. But I know that a very high-speed, very steep crash may leave very few parts bigger than a few inches, and those parts may be dispersed over many hundreds of feet by when they reach the bottom of the ocean.
                  I think American Airlines Flight 77 (crashed into the Pentagon) is a good case to analyze. The energy of that impact was extremely high -- hit the ground and very strong building -- and the plane literally disintegrated from the energy of the impact. However, if I remember correctly there were a couple larger pieces recovered (further in the building if I recall correctly) which were parts of the engines.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Without minimal damage we should be seeing more stuff floating up on shore. I think they're trying to say it had minimal damage to explain for this lack of items.

                    Nothing from the cockpit at all(first to take the hit and broke apart if it had indeed nose dived).. A few items from inside the cabin and few from the outside of the plane that would've been ripped off by sliding on top of water.. consistent with minimal damage.

                    Engine cowling, horizontal stabilizer, flaps.. those are all the things you'd expect to come off on a water landing. It seems extremely unlikely to me that a nose dive crushed the entire plane with major damage, but those exact parts that match a water landing were the ones that washed up.
                    Also if you look at the trailing edge of the flaperon, it is eaten up, but leading edge is in good condition.

                    Shouldn't it have smashed into the wing slot it's normally tucked into and banged up the leading edge ? On both sides too with consistent damage?

                    You seem to have more information than I do, it's great to hear they did the buoy tests..

                    When I add up the lack of parts, the exact parts you'd expect, and that the parts expected have leading edge damage consistent with what you'd expect from a water landing, then it seems strange to me..

                    The outer aileron on the Flight 1549 shows trailing edge damage, although much more damage..
                    http://charlottemagazine-images.dash...spectratio=1.5
                    Some parts of the flaps were ripped off as well.
                    This is another good photo:
                    https://c8.alamy.com/comp/DPXBP2/jan...ing-DPXBP2.jpg

                    The outer flap of that A320 has a small chip on the left side, which could be comparable with MH370:
                    https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577178...overall_05.jpg
                    The right side chip.. and the left side damage looks a lot like the aileron on the 1549 flight.

                    I do see that mostly the leading edge of the flaps on the 1549 flight mostly stayed intact. If it wasn't for that aileron, there wouldn't be that much of a resemblance. But, given it's a different plane, and that one would expect this type of damage from a water landing, I still think it gives something to think about when looking at those MH370 trailing edges.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Here is a comparison with that aileron
                      left side
                      https://image.ibb.co/j5ZnoA/parts.jpg

                      right side
                      https://image.ibb.co/mf6Zkq/part2.jpg

                      That aileron is pretty eaten up.. I think there's some similarity though and would be an incredible coincidence that nose-first impact results in this type of damage.

                      Would be nice to have a high resolution image of that aileron from Flight 1549,.. I wonder if any investigation was done to compare the type of damage from this aileron to the found parts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by caracal View Post
                        Without minimal damage we should be seeing more stuff floating up on shore. I think they're trying to say it had minimal damage to explain for this lack of items.
                        Who on Earth is "they" for God's sake?

                        --- 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


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          Who on Earth is "they" for God's sake?
                          The people that moved the trees...
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            The people that moved the trees...
                            Exactly. My previous post should have been of the "Are you Karl?" type.

                            --- 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


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              Who on Earth is "they" for God's sake?
                              "They" would be those saying it came down nose first.. Should've just said the "nose down theory people" =).. And that would include the majority of officials, official investigation, etc.. so I bunched it into "they".. because there aren't many who say otherwise. Hopefully we find the plane one day with some new technology that scans faster.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X