Tweet
If an airplane crashes vertically, water, snow, ice, or granite will not make a big difference. All the materials are very hard when you hit them at 1000 km/h.
-
--- 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 --- -
More than 50,000 square kilometres of the seafloor have been searched so far. As announced in April, the search area has been expanded beyond an original 60,000 square kilometre search area to enable up to 120,000 square kilometres to be searched if required. In the absence of credible new information that leads to the identification of a specific location of the aircraft, Governments have agreed that there will be no further expansion of the search area beyond the 120,000 square kilometres.
The 120K Km2 area is about 1/10 of the "grey" area which is compatible with the data, and about 40% of the "blue" area (not shown anymore) which was "high confidence" area restricting some variables.
While 120 sounds twice as much as 60, and it is, it means extending the 60K Km2 area a 20% in each direction. If you look at the map you'll see that.
If they find the plane within that area, it will be a remarkable result of a remarkable effort, but also a remarkable luck (in its more pure sense of a favorable result of randomness). Just like finding the needle in the haystack after committing to search just a part of it.
--- 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
-
What about conveyor belts?Originally posted by Gabriel View PostLes règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
Too.Originally posted by 3WE View 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
-
Nope. Goong Chen, who is in charge of a team at the Texas A&M University in Qatar.Originally posted by Evan View 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
-
Now a team of mathematicians claims the Boeing 777 vanished without a trace because it plunged into the Indian Ocean at a 90-degree angle.
The perfect nosedive kept the aircraft intact and explains why no debris or oil has been found since it disappeared in March last year with 239 people on board, the researchers say.
The researchers used applied mathematics to test five different landing scenarios.
These included gliding water entry, a skilful manoeuvre performed by Captain Chesley Sullenberger when he landed a US Airways flight on the Hudson River in New York in 2009.
However this scenario was discounted with MH370 because “ditching a large airplane on the open Indian Ocean generally would involve waves of height several metres or more, easily causing breakup and the leak of debris.”
So let me think if I got it:
The "Sully" scenario was abandoned because a controlled water landing at 120 kts can go very wrong if you hit a wave of several meters or more (by the way, how much is more than several meters?).
On the other hand, hitting the full Ocean in a 90 degrees dive at 600 kts ensures the integrity of the plane so there is no break up, no debris, o fuel leaks.
Makes sense!!!
Seriously here, how can somebody dear to publish this kind of "findings"? This is much worse than Binienda. You know, "can birch cut through a wing?" is a plausible question at least.
--- 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
-
And it made its way into a scientific, peer-reviewed paper (or something like that) published in an important scientific journal (or something like that): Notices of the The American Mathematical Society.
Evan, you will love this:
--- 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
-
I'm not loving it. It's math.Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
They seem to have done their homework on the compressibility and physics of the impact itself. Still, assuming their calculations are valid, the unanswered questions in my mind would be: How does the unpiloted aircraft get itself into a perfect 90° dive? How do the aerodynamic forces in such a dive not cause airframe failure before the impact? Upon impact,wouldn't large structures such as the vertical stabilizer certainly separate and, being composite structures, likely float? Upon impact with the sea floor, wouldn't the structure break up and release bouyant objects to the surface?Comment
-
You seem to largely subscribe to their figures, with the exception of the vertical stabilizer?Originally posted by Evan View Post
And then you cite the #1 flaw. The plane would break up from aerodynamic forces before hitting the water, but would not beak up from hydrodynamic forces?
Water is 800 times more dense than air...
So let's see...you do the perfect maneuver to crash at 150 knots and "the redline" is maybe 450 knots so that's 3X which means 9X the aerodynamic force...so 800 times the dynamic force = a torn up plane.
There's no doubt in my mind that some of their calculations are "correct", but they are missing something...something big.
When planes hit the water they are torn to $hit...Even Sully's slow speed touchdown trashed the underside of the plane. There's plenty of "data" from WWII aircraft nose diving in.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
There are only two reasons to explain lack of wrecklage:
1) Lack of coordination and transparency in the early hours of MH 370 disapearance
and/or
2) They are searching in the wrong place
The rest is conspiracy theory or non-sense
There is no way a crashed 777 leave no wrecklage in any circunstancesComment
-
I do? Where did I say that?Originally posted by 3WE View Post
I said they did their homework. I didn't say they did it right.Comment
-
And he said "you seem to subscribe", not "you are subscribing".Originally posted by Evan View Post
(3WE, my hourly fee as a lawyer is $500. To prepare this defense took me 5 hours).
--- 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
-
Forget about it boys and girls, that company is really weird. Two airplanes lost in less than one year. One of them is still missing and perhaps we will never know its destiny.Comment
-
Can we cite examples of large pax aircraft that have impacted water at a nearly vertical orientation and how the wreckage was found. I think Alaska 261 was nearly straight in. That shattered it. Swiss 111? Not sure about the entry angle but it disintegrated.
We have here the classic empirical vs. rational argument. Mathematicians from a prestigious university who are credible are reaching a rational conclusion. History has shown us empirically a different result. But is there an angle of entry (never mind for the moment how it could get into that angle) that history hasn't shown us?Comment
-
Of course. Most of the possible entry angles (that is, infinite) were never "attempted".Originally posted by Evan View Post
There are things that are so obviously wrong that you don't publish the result, or at least make a high disclaimer saying that it looks wrong and you'll keep investigating (remember the superluminal neutrinos)?
In a Rational Mechanics exam in the university, we were asked what was the max speed that a given rocket would achieve climbing vertically (it was a multi-stage rocket, and we had to take into account the variable mass and the variable gravity). I got a result that was faster than light. And while we were in the scope of Newtonian mechanics (where the speed of light is no bound), it was just a rocket with some hundreds of tons of empty weight and some thousands of tons of fuel and O2. Nothing super hyper special.
I didn't like my result, but after reviewing my resolution once, I found no mistake, and I didn't have time for another review.
So I wrote a note in the exam: "I am confident that my approach to solve the problem is correct, but I must have done some calculation wrong because there is no way that this rocket will go faster than light".
A week later, when I got the result, I found a note from the professor: "Your approach is good and I couldn't find you mistake either. But there is one". And he gave mo 80% of the credits for this exercise.
Reviewing the problem at home, without pressure and with time, surely I found a - that "mysteriously" became a + during the resolution of the equations.
Some things just can't happen (until PROVEN otherwise, because things that seamed impossible were shown to be necessary, like quantum mechanics).
--- 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