Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:42 From: "Graeme Hogan" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Organization: A customer of Netspace Internet References: 1 2 3 4
View raw article or MIME structure
email@example.com wrote in message <firstname.lastname@example.org>... >cowboy's comment: surely Karl you can post something more definitive than >'I recall'. He recalls it. What's your problem clownboy ? >With the resources and knowhow at your disposal you should be able to >establish if the medical reports on victims is in the public domain or not. >I >would have thought that the pitch up at that speed (below 300kts) would >have produced "g" forces low enough to be sustained by a human torso, after >all the wings did not break off. With the forward section removed there would have been less inertia to overcome. >I find it hard to agree with the filmed >simulation of the eventual break up of the main structure after the stall, >wing over and descent as depicted. The NTSB spokesman said that the FDR >gave a split second of info at the time of initiation of the accident and >then nothing. Naturally so, as the flight data acquisition unit, power >souces etc are in the flight deck that has detached. So they are asking us >to believe that after the climb and wing over the aeroplane exceeded its Vne >and some so that aerodynamic loads caused the wings to break off, the fuel >tanks fracture and the fuel ignite. The structual integrity of the aircraft has been removed with the fwd section. >But the max altitude reached I recall So now you recall. >was well short of 20000ft. Are the wings that weak, Only your argument. >I'd have thought not. If the explosion and fire was in the area of the >centre wing fuel tank and it is by diagram and definition, between wings, >wouldn't the initial explosion quite possibly have weakened the wing, >main spar, whatever, that assisted in their breakup,rather than just >aerodynamic loads. In this case surely inspection of the debris would >have shown this. This did not get a mention. >Of course if the medical evidence supports you contention then so be it. >Perhaps it is possible for you to find out.I am not proposing any new >theories, just questioning the computer simulation of the sequence of >vents. I am in awe of the work put in by the NTSB investigators who >assembled the wreckage so completely from what was, initially, a heap of >trash. They deserve what ever accolades they get. Oh, you got something right. Well done clownboy.