Posted on 11/01/2015 10:58:19 AM PST by libh8er
The tail is intact way behind the smashed up plane.
Explosive decompression resulting in structural disintegration does not happen any longer. It became famous because of the first jet airliner, the Comet, was lost this way. Modern aircraft do not have this weakness.
“The plane is pressurized. It is held together by a very thin aluminum skin stretched over ribs. Break that skin almost anywhere and there is a sudden, progressive cascade of events, each worse than the one before it.”
This is not true. Airplanes are constructed with spars, ribs, formers and stringers. Then they are skinned with aluminum. Composite aircraft are the exception.
Wide body aircraft can have more than one window blow out and still maintain pressurization.
The ball is in Putin’s Court now. This is a cause for war—if it was a bomb—time to go nuclear! The “Civil War” in Syria could be over in 48 hours because all of the rebels and ISIS will be dead.
The photos of the crash site I’ve seen show the forward
fuselage and wings together, one would think a high
altitude break up would preclude that happening.
It wasn’t a Russian plane (or even owned, built or maintained by the Russian company, which was only leasing it).
The bomb would not have been placed in Russia but in Egypt, whence the plane took off, and was probably placed not only to take out some Russian civilians, but to destroy Egypt’s tourism industry. That place is very popular with European tourists and this could really kill it.
The video posted by ISIS may have been a complete fabrication, but it shows an explosion in the middle of the plane and then a sudden plunge in a cloud of smoke.
Supposedly, according to the investigators, the plane was in two parts, one severely burned and the other just broken up. Bodies have been found several miles away, so obviously it did break up at a high altitude, with some passengers simply being blown out and the others (in the rear section, from what I have seen) dying in the fire before they even hit ground.
Eerily similar to TWA 800. Perhaps it was mechanical failure, perhaps terrorism. What is important here is that ISIS immediately took credit, and this is a poke in the eye to Putin, which he will feel compelled to respond to.
Unlike what Obama would do if it were our plane, Putin’s response will no doubt have a retaliatory, punitive flavor. Without apologies.
If only there were some pro-Russian FReepers around to warn us of the perils of warmongering.
Just read a new report saying authorities are backing off statement that it was definitely a mechanical cause.
While it’s possible for some type of missle to reach it, I think if it’s terrorism it’s some kind of bomb on board. No SOS, no report of mech difficulty. Lockerbie? TWA 800?
What information would the black boxes show if a bomb went off?
It was a leased plane from I think Ireland
It may not have been complete disintegration in the sky. If a small bomb blew a hole in the fuselage rupturing some control lines, the plane could have gone into uncontrolled descent and crash landed with parts of the fuselage still together.
I hope Putin blasts them. That’s the only thing that will stop ISIS: destroy their captured places and any city, town or government that is supporting them.
There will be “collateral damage.” Give warning so that the innocent, if they can, will be able to evacuate. And also, as for the innocent, even if they are killed, it would probably be better for them to die in a bombing than to be hacked and tortured to death.
Appeal for prayers and aid for survivors, but get ISIS out of there.
False! It is functionally a question of the order of magnitude of the decompression. There are several good summaries of the break-up mechanism in this thread.
Perhaps not to the extent of structural disintegration, but loss of control for various reasons may ensue....such as JAL123.
Can you cite one in modern times where decompression caused structural failure?
Rather, a structural failure caused by something other than decompression is far more likely. In 1g level flight, that means an explosion of some kind.
Sure, be glad to:
Turkish airline DC-10 crash 1974. Failed cargo door hatch and resultant explosive decompression caused destruction of rear passenger cabin floor and loss of control leading to crash. Another DC-10 in the US had the same type failure but survived the incident (American Airlines 1972).
The C-5A babylift crash in Saigon, 1975. "The cause was ascribed to loss of flight control due to explosive decompression and structural failure." The quote is from the accident report. Failed rear cargo door latches caused explosive decompression and loss of aircraft.
The JAL 747 crash in 1985. Improper rear bulkhead repair caused rapid decompression loss of control of aircraft.
I will concede 1974 Turkish Airlines.
Of course, none were narrow body aircraft, and a bulkhead failure is not always explosive decompression. There have been numerous failures of bulkheads that were not pressure related. Air China in 2002 is one - another wide body.
Whoa. I can’t believe you said that.
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.