This aircraft carried troops to and from Afghanistan.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Peter_K View PostThis aircraft carried troops to and from Afghanistan.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwester View PostThe aircraft was checked for explosives before the flight to Smolensk and it was clean (at least that's what BOR is saying).
Now where did I put my tinfoil hat?
Comment
-
Polish prosecutors issued an update of the investigation. The investigation has been extended to October 10th, 2013. The prosecutors are still waiting for the following items from Russia:
- the wreckage of the plane with the flight data recorders, generators, and other equipment
- documentation describing weather conditions (real and forecasted) at the site on April 10th, 2010
- video recording of the work of the Air Control Group
- documentation of Smolensk Severny airdrome, its facilities, and personnel employed on April 10th, 2010
- legal regulations pertaining to the air traffic control functions in Smolensk as applicable to the situation from April 10th, 2010
Comment
-
I think the version of the plane hitting the birch at 5 or 6 m above ground can be now totally discarded. Here are the field notes made by Russian investigators on April 10, 2010 between 3:05 and 8:12 PM:
"Farther in the Northwest direction there is an abandoned garden plot measuring 30 by 55 meters. This plot is partially fenced with a wooden picket fence. On this plot there are random piles of trash (tires, bottles, paper etc.). On this plot, in the Southwest direction, there is also a shed measuring 4 by 2 meters. This shed is leaning to the left side, on the top of the shed there is a metal fragment of the plane and fragments of branches. At the West end of the plot there is a birch with a 80 cm diameter at the ground. This birch is standing at about 15 meters in the East direction from the shed. At about 1 meter, the top of the birch is broken off. In the upper, broken off part of the birch, there are metal parts of the plane. Also, metal fragments of the plane are "hanging" on the branches of the birch. In the radius of 1 to 12 meters around the birch, on the ground, there multiple metal plane fragments of various size."
If the birch was cut at 1 meter from the top, then all the calculations done by the independent groups setting the trajectory about 15 m higher than the official one, are correct. We can forget about the birch breaking off the wing and the roll.
Comment
-
Three years to date and nothing, the black boxes and the wrack is still in Russia, why? The longer nothing happens the more people will believe of an assassination on Polish Gov. In my mind this was planed it was not by chance. This was done by current Polish Gov and Russia with the help of US and Germany. To this day we don't have a proper investigation just speculations and bunch off people with their own beliefs. Like I said before the whole truth of this crash will come to light one day and it will point at this current Polish Gov with help of Russia. I don’t need mambo jumbo made up reports by people on this forum to tell me other wise.
Comment
-
Originally posted by justLOT787 View PostThis was done by current Polish Gov and Russia with the help of US and Germany.
(I mean, since we are spitting names of countries just because...)
--- 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 ---
Comment
-
The Russinan, Polish, German and American government were very lucky that:
- There was fog with weather below minimums.
- The pilot decided to attempt the approach in impossible conditions.
- They failed to go-around on minimums.
If any of them had been different, the assassination as planned would have been impossible.
Now, what are the chances that an assassination of a whole foreign government is based on the alignment of the three above improbable 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 ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by brianw999 View PostWouldn't it be wonderful Gabriel if everyone here noted the facts of your last post ?
--- 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 ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
- There was fog with weather below minimums.
- The pilot decided to attempt the approach in impossible conditions.
- They failed to go-around on minimums.
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
There again.
Please, someone explain to Dr. Binieda that:
1) Lift is proportional to wing area and to speed squared.
2) Vref is at least 1.23 Vs.
3) From 1 and 2, Vref is enough to provide a lift of more than 1.5 times the airplane's weight with a full wing.
4) That would be enough provide a lift equal to the weight with 1/1.5 of the wing area or, what's the same, after loosing 33% of the wing area (and I mean 33% of the whole wing area, or 66% of the area of the wing on one side).
5) The plane in question lost much less than 66% of the left wing area, perhaps 20% of it, what would be 10% of the whole wing area.
6) The plane in question was flying at a speed well above Vref.
7) Because of all of the above, the plane in question had more than enough capability to produce a lift way larger than its own weight, and hence to accelerate up, and hence to climb, even after loosing the reported fraction of the wing. Not to mention that if it was already climbing before loosing part or even all of the wing, an object will not stop climbing immediately, a physical effect known as "INERTIA" that can be fuzzy for some Doctors.
8 ) All that holds true even if a Doctor says that this would be physically impossible. It is not. It doesn't take a Doctorate to make all of the above simple calculations and deductions, and what is physically possible remains physically possible even after a Doctor says it is not.
9) Whether the plane would be controllable in roll after that is a different matter altogether. A relatively small fraction of the wing far away from the CG can have a great impact on rolling moment, especially when the device intended to control the rolling moment (a.k.a. aileron) is located precisely in that part of the wing that goes missing.
To make it clear, I can't judge his analysis regarding the wing-tree impact. I just lack the knowledge. I can only believe it or not.
Now, when a person says that the tree could have never severed the wing and that the plane could have never climbed if it had, I positively know that he is wrong at least in one thing, and makes me doubt about the other one.
Add his mention that the Russians needed to invent a physically impossible (NOT!) climb in order to give space for the plane to roll inverted without scraping the ground and hence fit their "fake" scenario of the accident (that is, using a wrong physical declaration to base a political one), and I can only have more doubts.
Again, I can't judge his technical analysis of the tree-wing impact. Maybe he is right. On the other hand, his credibility in general is very poor with me. So maybe he is not.
--- 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 ---
Comment
Comment