Re: TWA 800 Graphics and Simulations indicate probable cause:

Date:         25 Aug 98 00:53:42 
From:         "Graeme Hogan" <ghogan@netspace.net.au>
Organization: A customer of Netspace Internet
References:   1 2 3 4
View raw article
  or MIME structure


cowboy@ram.net.au wrote in message <6rqpck$k3i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>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.