Posted on 03/18/2014 12:18:38 PM PDT by servo1969
Real life provides enough evidence. Off the top of my head, USAir 427 crashed vertically (80 degrees) at an airspeed of approximately 260 knots. This aircraft weighed about five times as much, so if it’s traveling twice as fast then the energy is now twenty times as much. The debris from 427 was very small, so it is not only possible but likely that if a 777 crashed in the way this pilot describes, it would be in incredibly small pieces.
“so if it’s traveling twice as fast then the energy is now twenty times as much.”
More
Power = Mass (velocity squared)
You cite two examples. I can give you more where no call was made. The fact is, one plausible scenario is crew theft, but just because something doesn’t make sense to a non pilot, does not make it any less or more plausible. The idea that something is “plausable” takes far more knowledge than the average online amateur.
Did I butcher the equation? I thought that mass was linear and velocity was quadratic, so five times the mass and twice the speed would be 5 * 2^2.
Vertical dive would damage the boxes. But the data media stands a very good chance of surviving.
The Boxes are in the tail and are protected by the entire length of the aircraft as to crush deceleration. It would still take a lick.
The boxes are the most armored items and are built with the idea of surviving a crash. They will break free of their mounts in this type crash.
Thanks for that. I think it was supposed to be Malaysian military radar that gave that 45k reading. Practically speaking, what would militaries want with a radar that couldn't show elevation? After all enemies invading your airspace don't normally squawk mode c!
It is forbidden to give scientific facts to a forum response!
After noting the ridiculous information that has been feeding into the newsrooms, later contradicted or tossed in the trash, I tend to accept the simplest explanation of the data.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/
I’d have to do it with real numbers to tell you.
You don't know any more than anyone else, stirring the pot calling anyone who disagrees with you as a wild-eyed conspiracist is counter-productive and childish on your part.
OK, so pretend that twenty times more energy was involved. Would the debris be the same size?
This isn’t a hard concept to understand. It’s essentially the difference between a .22LR round and a .243 Winchester round. Go look at what the two rounds do to ballistics gel.
How about another example of one that flew for 7 hours after a fire?
Anyway I agree this is all speculation. This story is already 'stranger than fiction'.
I've not seen that theory suggested, based on what I've read the last few days that doesn't seem possible at 45,000 feet in a 777. I'd discount it myself.
The captain shot that one down by pointing out they didn't head for the nearest airport, which would have been Sultan Mahmud (TGG), on the north coast of the Malaysian Island. Reportedly, that was where the co-pilot did his 777 training. Pulau Langkawi (LGK), the airport Rush cited and nearer to where they actually went according to the military radar, is significantly further from the point of their last communication.
If it is any consolation: I recall an overseas trip (Delta Airlines Atlanta to London’s Gatwick Airport to ) in which the pilot announced he was going up to 41,000 ft to avoid bad weather ahead. That was a 747 back in 2000.
Obviously no problem else I wouldn’t be writing this.
Well, here is what I said, up above, in the way of theories ... :-) ...
It’s really obvious that the plane was purposefully diverted and it wasn’t some kind of accident. It’s also obvious that whoever is responsible knows quite a bit about flying and that plane.
As to whether we’ll ever find out what happened - we may not - just as we have never found out what happened to that other big airliner that basically disappeared into thin air about ten years ago.
We never found out about that one and it looks like we’re never going to find out about this one either.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3134616/posts?page=44#44
If that so-called theory is problematic, for your understanding, then you’ve got some other issues going on ...
Of possible interest to the ping lists as a FYI:
Retired 777 Pilot Calls the Show (Rush Limbaugh)
Would it be 1/20th the size? Is the same force of impact applied to every square inch of the plane and its contents? Obviously not.
kinetic energy = 1/2 (m)(v squared)
seems appropriate too
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.