Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 81 to 93 of 93

Thread: Smolensk 2010 crash - new technical report

  1. #81
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    And one important question: If, as previous reports maintain, the plane lost a small fragment of the wing colliding with a tree, and the new wind tunnel experiments proved that such a loss could be compensated by the pilots, what caused the full roll of the plane?
    1) Do you know the difference between could have and did? How many accidents do you want me to list where the pilots could have controlled the plane but did not?
    2) As I mentioned earlier, one thing is to control roll with asymmetric lift at 1G and another very different thing to control roll with asymmetric lift at 2G. The pilot was pulling fully up to the stop by then. Of course the report very conveniently doesn't investigate the roll control under such conditions.

    --- 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 ---

  2. #82
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    And one important question: If, as previous reports maintain, the plane lost a small fragment of the wing colliding with a tree, and the new wind tunnel experiments proved that such a loss could be compensated by the pilots, what caused the full roll of the plane?
    I think that busting off the ends of wings is a rather intimate to ailerons and control cables...doesn't seem too far out that something might have gotten yanked/shoved/crinkled to a full up or full down position- with the opposite, linked side dutifully being forced the other way to a full-roll deflection.

    I think this has probably occurred somewhat often (and maybe some wing torqueing malformation)- and that busting wing tips cleanly where you still have great aileron function and authority is probably the exception.

    If the the math says that wing area vs. control authority = control authority wins, that's super cool, except what's that mean if the control authority is saying full roll? (For clarity- the yoke inputs are NOT what I'm discussing)

    And since we're now into analogies- please take a peek at auto racing and car wrecks where you glance off the wall...not_uncommon that the steering is boggered full in one direction...(Again, meaningless if the math says that the tire friction could have been adequate to maintain directional control).

    One another good analogy...ever driven a small tractor with manual steering, and clipped a tree stump and had the wheel ripped out of your hand? (even though there was adequate authority to maintain directional control).
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  3. #83
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    1) Do you know the difference between could have and did? How many accidents do you want me to list where the pilots could have controlled the plane but did not?
    2) As I mentioned earlier, one thing is to control roll with asymmetric lift at 1G and another very different thing to control roll with asymmetric lift at 2G. The pilot was pulling fully up to the stop by then. Of course the report very conveniently doesn't investigate the roll control under such conditions.
    To make sure I understand it correctly: are you saying that if the pilot did everything right, he could have controlled the roll, or, that, because of the combination of factors, even if he did everything right, the chances of controlling the roll were almost zero?

    And, would it be possible to establish from the wreckage, the configuration of the controls, if the pilot was doing the right thing to counter the roll?

  4. #84
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    ***are you saying that if the pilot did everything right, he could have controlled the roll***
    He's saying many things. One of them is that quick flip overs can sometimes be done very efficiently by pulling up relentlessly on planes with fully in-tact wings. (Do you participate at an aviation forum called "Jetphotos.net"?- they talk about this topic with some regularity and could provide insight.)
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  5. #85
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,663

    Default

    To make sure I understand it correctly: you are debating how delaying and then botching a go-around, descending below runway elevation at flight idle in dense fog and suddenly colliding with a foot-wide tree that severed 21 ft off the left wing could possibly result in CFIT?

    You're right, it just doesn't add up...

  6. #86
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    To make sure I understand it correctly: are you saying that if the pilot did everything right, he could have controlled the roll, or, that, because of the combination of factors, even if he did everything right, the chances of controlling the roll were almost zero?
    To make it clear, what I am saying 2 things:
    1- is that EVEN IF the plane was controllable, which I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE CASE, that doesn't mean that the pilot did control it.
    2- The report only explores a basic scenario of "missing this much of the wing vs controls that were still there" without exploring the chance that perhaps the controls were not fully functional (if at all) and more importantly, they make the comparison by dividing the wight of the plane by the area of the wing and multiplying by the are that was lost and the distance, without ever taking into account that the plane was pulling up hard a that point (full elevator up deflection, according to the FDR) which means a couple of things: a) quite more than 1 G so quite more asymmetric lift (wing produces more lift at more than 1 G but ailerons don't gain any roll authority) and b) high angle-of-attack with severely diminishes the effectiveness of the ailerons. Any team seriously, fairly making an unbiased investigation the accident with the objective of FINDING the truth (which is not known or assumed) would not leave these factors aside because they are central in this aspect they are investigating and are obvious. This was not a mistake, it was intentional, following an agenda.

    Pick, choose, an interpret the evidence to fit the agenda. An investigation made not to reach to a conclusion but to fit the pre-defined conclusion.

    --- 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 ---

  7. #87
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    To make sure I understand it correctly: you are debating how delaying and then botching a go-around, descending below runway elevation at flight idle in dense fog and suddenly colliding with a foot-wide tree that severed 21 ft off the left wing could possibly result in upside down CFIT?

    You're right, it just doesn't add up...
    Fixed.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  8. #88
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Closely related investigation report:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUSVo1c-l0c

    --- 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 ---

  9. #89
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Closely related investigation report:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUSVo1c-l0c
    I mean, if they've already built a celestial object blurring mechanism, I suppose I've been rather naive to dismiss the Russian mind-control ray as mere fantasy. So this is a game changer...

  10. #90
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Just to remind you what this is about.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Door01.JPG 
Views:	32 
Size:	80.1 KB 
ID:	15766   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Edge curls.JPG 
Views:	31 
Size:	66.4 KB 
ID:	15767  

  11. #91
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    68

    Default

    I blame 'great circle' navigation, we all know the Earth is flat

  12. #92
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    An article in Observer by John Schindler:
    http://observer.com/2018/05/evidence...led-kaczynski/
    I am attaching a fragment.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Observer article.JPG 
Views:	20 
Size:	125.2 KB 
ID:	15832  

  13. #93
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    An article in Observer by John Schindler:
    http://observer.com/2018/05/evidence...led-kaczynski/
    I am attaching a fragment.
    "There is no doubt that there were explosions on board before the airplane hit the ground."
    Here's what an NTSB investigator would say:

    "There are multiple reasons to doubt that there were any explosions on board before the crew flew the airplane into the hillside."
    So if a western investigation is what he wants, that is what he's going to get out of it.

    FYI: about 'Observer':

    Joseph Meyer, Chairman and Publisher

    Joseph Meyer is the Managing Partner and Founder of Observer Capital, an investment firm focused on private equity and special situation investment opportunities. Observer Capital's portfolio includes Observer Media, Source Media and Knotel.
    'special situation investment opportunities'

    Let me know when you realize that people are making money by entertaining your fantasies.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •