Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Previous accidents with nose-down impact into water / MH370

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by caracal View Post
    "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..
    Then "they" (he majority of officials, official investigation, etc..) are NOT saying that there was minimal damage.
    And "they" are NOT saying that it was a vertical dive ("they" say it was likely a spiral dive with very high descent rate, which is not the same).
    And, certainly, "they" are NOT saying that a vertical dive would result in minimal damage, which is stupidly ridiculous.
    Finally, "they" are not proposing that the lack of more debris washing up the shore (only about a dozen parts were found) is due to minimal damage.

    So what on Earth are you talking about?

    Are you Northwestern?

    --- 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


    • #17
      Gabriel, you are so naive.
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        Gabriel, you are so naive.
        Yeah, I forgot about that real incident where that 747 did a vertical dive into the water and remained mostly intact.

        --- 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


        • #19
          1995 Toronto Air show crash:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o6PitZEmMI

          Nowhere near a screaming, vertical, high speed nosedive.

          More like a moderately low speed belly flop. Hitting water is a bit like hitting a brick wall. An aircraft wil be almost vaporised on impact. Even if the relatively streamlined fuselage made it through the water surface (a bit like the old “shooting a candle through a barn door” trick) the wings, engines and tail fin would break up on impact.
          The “candle through the door” trick relies on the candle coming through air, hitting the door and re-emerging into air for it to work. Hitting the water brick wall doesn’t work because there is just more water on the other side of the surface.
          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            Gabriel, you are so naive.
            Is any landing you can swim away from a good one?
            Be alert! America needs more lerts.

            Eric Law

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              Yeah, I forgot about that real incident where that 747 did a vertical dive into the water and remained mostly intact.
              Wrong!

              George Kennedy used genius airmanship to make a Sully-like landing.

              However, since the 747 was made from high-quality, strong aluminium alloys, the aircraft sank.

              Unlike Sully's cheap, composite, crackerbox.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #22
                Yeah, I forgot about that real incident where that 747 did a vertical dive into the water and remained mostly intact.

                Better now?

                --- 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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  Yeah, I forgot about that real incident where that 747 did a vertical dive into the water and remained mostly intact.

                  Better now?
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsBA8MA1oko
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    Wrong!

                    George Kennedy used genius airmanship to make a Sully-like landing.

                    However, since the 747 was made from high-quality, strong aluminium alloys, the aircraft sank.

                    Unlike Sully's cheap, composite, crackerbox.
                    I remember the first time I watched that, thinking George Kennedy waas going to find a way to fly it out of there. And then say. "She's one helluva plane!"

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      I remember the first time I watched that, thinking George Kennedy waas going to find a way to fly it out of there. And then say. "She's one helluva plane!"
                      Indeed.

                      I see from the YouTube that it was the bad guys and not_George Kennedy that ditched the plane, using a relentless pull up, no-less. Fortunately it was well built except for the piano mounts.

                      I think it was maybe the Concorde when Joe finally got the left seat.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Indeed.

                        I see from the YouTube that it was the bad guys and not_George Kennedy that ditched the plane, using a relentless pull up, no-less. Fortunately it was well built except for the piano mounts.

                        I think it was maybe the Concorde when Joe finally got the left seat.
                        Just out of curiosity, does Randazzo have a simulation for that?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                          Just out of curiosity, does Randazzo have a simulation for that?
                          I dunno. But pretty amazing that you can learn to basically land a 747 for under $200. You may not know all the important details and procedures but it sort of behaves like 600,000 lbs...might have to imangine the handful of throttles though.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X