Previous accidents with nose-down impact into water / MH370

[Gabriel]

"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?

[Evan]

Gabriel, you are so naive.

[Gabriel]

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.

[brianw999]

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.

[elaw]

Gabriel, you are so naive.

Is any landing you can swim away from a good one?

[3WE]

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.

[Gabriel]

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

Better now?

[3WE]

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

[Evan]

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!"

[3WE]

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.

[BoeingBobby]

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?

[3WE]

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.