Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: WLJ on March 21, 2022, 08:47:13 AM
-
737-800 down in China with 132 people on board
Developing story
China Eastern: Plane carrying 132 people crashes in Guangxi hills
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-60819760
-
Video supposedly showing the 737 plunging at high speed straight down. Yikes
"Horrifying footage shows the Boeing 737 plummeting to the ground after falling from 29,100ft in a minute and a half."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDDiB1dOGgs
-
JET CRASH China Eastern Airlines crash – Shocking moment Boeing 737 with 132 on board nosedives vertically into mountain at 400mph
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18014251/china-eastern-airlines-crash-jet-mountain/
-
Lose 29,000 feet in 90 seconds? Intentional or inflight break-up.
Looks more intentional to me.
-
Notice the speed suddenly dropping a bit right before increasing? In flight break up? Or maybe it occurred right after they throttled back for decent?
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NINTCHDBPICT000720604433.jpg?w=620)
-
Or maybe a thrust reversal incident?
-
In that short snippet of video of the plane just before impact, it looked like the vertical stabilizer was missing. It was hard to tell for sure, though, as the video was pretty poor quality.
-
If it had much of a sustained vertical dive, much less a powered vertical dive, It would be well past Vmo (maximum operating speed) and could have already had structural failure even if it had started the dive in good shape. Especially as it got lower at high speed.
It looks like Vmo for a 737-800 is 340ktsCAS/.82 Mach. I'd expect if it held .85-.9 Mach as it went under 15,000 or so feet it'd start to come apart.
-
I wonder if this might end up being similar to Alaska Air 261. I was on the response to that one. As I recall, their first dive was pretty much nose down near vertical, from which they recovered, then they went inverted and back in. The horizontal stabilizer system was the problem there.
-
I wonder if this might end up being similar to Alaska Air 261. I was on the response to that one. As I recall, their first dive was pretty much nose down near vertical, from which they recovered, then they went inverted and back in. The horizontal stabilizer system was the problem there.
Alaska air was an MD80. There have been a couple of (not sure how many) reports of 737s going straight down after a uncommanded rudder hardover malfunction. One of the was in Pittsburgh IIRC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues
The 737 has had its share of issues, I remember a couple that lost an engine (as in fell off) in flight. The rudder hardover issues and then the 737 Max goundings.
bob
-
Reported the cockpit recorder has been found. Hopefully it can answer some questions
Also
The radar data shows the plane reaching maximum descent speeds of 31,000 ft per minute - or 157m per second.
"This is extremely excessive and not something we would normally see in any sort of flight. The aircraft would have been almost vertical," says Dr Sonya Brown, an aviation expert from the University of New South Wales.
At about 7,000-8,000 ft from the ground, there was a slight upturn, the data shows.
But then it continued it's high speed plummet to the ground.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-60856855
-
157 meters per second translates to about 565 km/hour or 351 mph. Not that fast for a 737-800, even at lower altitudes. Cruise at altitude is 0.785 Mach, and that works out to about 590 mph. I wonder how correct the FlightRadar24 data is?
-
157 meters per second translates to about 565 km/hour or 351 mph. Not that fast for a 737-800, even at lower altitudes. Cruise at altitude is 0.785 Mach, and that works out to about 590 mph. I wonder how correct the FlightRadar24 data is?
That was the vertical component of the velocity.
-
That was the vertical component of the velocity.
Yes, headed almost straight down at around 350 mph. I'm thinking it wouldn't have been shedding parts at that velocity.
-
Yes, headed almost straight down at around 350 mph. I'm thinking it wouldn't have been shedding parts at that velocity.
Shouldn't be considering the cruising speed is around 520 mph.
Brad
-
Yes, headed almost straight down at around 350 mph. I'm thinking it wouldn't have been shedding parts at that velocity.
Any parts it shed would have probably parted company when they overstressed the airframe trying to pull out of the dive.
-
Any parts it shed would have probably parted company when they overstressed the airframe trying to pull out of the dive.
If that actually happened. There was that brief bobble in the dive, so maybe an attempt to pull out was made. I haven't heard whether any major parts were found away from the impact site. If there were, that would indicate parts coming off at high speed.
-
If that actually happened. There was that brief bobble in the dive, so maybe an attempt to pull out was made. I haven't heard whether any major parts were found away from the impact site. If there were, that would indicate parts coming off at high speed.
The terrain in that area judging from videos appears to be quite rugged. Could be months, years, or even never in finding parts.
-
Bloomberg is reporting that a piece of the jet was found about 6 miles from the crash site. That piece had not yet been identified.
-
If that actually happened. There was that brief bobble in the dive, so maybe an attempt to pull out was made. I haven't heard whether any major parts were found away from the impact site. If there were, that would indicate parts coming off at high speed.
Not necessarily. If they way overloaded the airframe pulling out of the dive they could lose parts just from that, even if speeds weren’t especially high. Or if they were in a high AOA resulting in a stall it’s possible for flutter to occur (especially in an already overload damaged part) that could break it off at unremarkable speeds.
-
Not necessarily. If they way overloaded the airframe pulling out of the dive they could lose parts just from that, even if speeds weren’t especially high. Or if they were in a high AOA resulting in a stall it’s possible for flutter to occur (especially in an already overload damaged part) that could break it off at unremarkable speeds.
All very true.
-
I wonder how correct the FlightRadar24 data is?
How about when it's hacked? https://youtu.be/Zlyw5bPXs0U?t=776
-
Peer Beer review requested.
I read when the Challenger capsule hit the water the acceleration was 300g.
So I kinda wondered morbidly what the acceleration might have been in the recent 737-800 disaster.
I was a little uncomfortable with my logic in the following.
One g of acceleration is 21.94 miles per hour per second, per 'net lookup.
Fuselage length is 190 feet total stopping distance with no crater depth figured in as part of the stopping distance. 190 feet is .036 miles.
Time to stop is .036 miles / 350 miles per hour (IOW the time to go from 350mph to
zero miles per hour)
This is .0003028 hours. In seconds this is .370 seconds.
Rate X time = distance
Rate = distance / time
mph per second = .036 miles / .370 seconds to stop = .097
I get mph/second = .097 mph/sec
21.94 / .097 = 226 gee without adding in the crater depth (unknown) as part of the stopping distance, which would reduce the acceleration by a factor of (fuselage length / ( fuselage length + crater depth)).
I think.
Terry, 230RN
-
150-250g is in the ballpark.
Many F1 drivers have survived 50g impacts, and an Indy car driver survived a 214g impact, but those last for a couple, maybe tens of milliseconds at most at that peak level. The 737 (or Challenger) impacts were not only as high or higher peak, but lasted a lot longer (hundreds of milliseconds at least, likely 1000-2000 milliseconds). It’s the duration that’s really deadly, more so than the peak. Plus, airline pax aren’t nearly as well restrained, and there’s the whole fireball, and huge amounts of shredded metal going everywhere too.
-
Shouldn't be considering the cruising speed is around 520 mph.
Brad
Yes, headed almost straight down at around 350 mph. I'm thinking it wouldn't have been shedding parts at that velocity.
350 mph in the thick air at low altitude is not the same as 520mph crusing speed at altitude. The 350 has a higher "feel" on the plane.
The cruising speed of 520 is True Air Speed (TAS), not Indicated Air Speed (IAS). IAS is the wind you feel when you stick your hand out of the window. Flying 350mph at low altitude will result in a bunch of wind on your hand. Take that same speed into space and you won't feel anything, that's TAS.
Even 350 in thick air is not an issue. The 737 family has a maximum operating speed around 350 kts (402 mph). So the 350 mph vertical speed probably didn't damage the plane.
I
-
Voice recorder in DC
U.S. NTSB helps China download voice record of crashed Boeing jet
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-ntsb-team-departs-china-take-part-boeing-crash-probe-2022-04-01/
-
Hmmm ...
Information about the crash must be released in an open, timely and transparent manner, state media said in a report on the meeting of the seven-person Standing Committee of the Communist Party's politburo, China's top leadership.
Why is it that whenever I hear or see a statement such as this, my immediate thought is that the real intent is anything BUT transparency?
-
Information about the crash must be released in an open, timely and transparent manner, state media said in a report on the meeting of the seven-person Standing Committee of the Communist Party's politburo, China's top leadership.
We must first fix the blame before we can fix the problem.
-
So is crashing now classified as a feature or a bug for this particular boeing contraption?
-
So is crashing now classified as a feature or a bug for this particular boeing contraption?
Which Boeing contraption? This crash involved a 737-800. The model with the MCAS system that caused the two major crashes a couple of years ago was the 737 Max.
-
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/china-eastern-plane-crash-data-suggest-intentional-dive-wsj-says/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=owned_echobox_f&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3n_v5ziARE3utsUqrlVgbwHcaIF1f8ZWflSVQFNPUwFox28UBH1crbEsU#Echobox=1652825902
This may have been a deliberate crash.
-
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/china-eastern-plane-crash-data-suggest-intentional-dive-wsj-says/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=owned_echobox_f&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3n_v5ziARE3utsUqrlVgbwHcaIF1f8ZWflSVQFNPUwFox28UBH1crbEsU#Echobox=1652825902
This may have been a deliberate crash.
The plane that crashes while the spy who compromised an American politician is on board just might have been intentional? No way! ;/ I'm like super shocked.
-
The plane that crashes while the spy who compromised an American politician is on board just might have been intentional? No way! ;/ I'm like super shocked.
Wait, what?
-
Wait, what?
Fang-fang was a passenger on that 737 that just went straight down in bumfuk china.
-
Fang-fang was a passenger on that 737 that just went straight down in bumfuk china.
The one that Swalwell was banging?
-
The one that Swalwell was banging?
That's the one.
Guess it doesn't pay to be a failed and famous spy for the CCP.
-
Makes sense now….
-
That's the one.
Guess it doesn't pay to be a failed and famous spy for the CCP.
Fang Fang was on the plane? Really? Hmmmm . . .
Well, even though it seems there are easier ways of doing things (e.g., car accident, a fall in the shower, Covid complications, etc.) I would NOT put it past the CCP to kill a planeload of people to eliminate a failed spy - remember this is still basically the SAME government which under Mao murdered more people than Hitler and Stalin combined.
And of course, they gave the world Covid.
-
There is talk that this is actually a different Fang Fang - the CEO of some Chinese company. I can't find any concrete evidence either way.
-
99.999% chance a different Fang Fang
Dinglong Culture, a Guangzhou company in both mining and TV and movie production, said in a statement to the Shenzhen stock exchange that its CFO, Fang Fang, was a passenger. Zhongxinghua, an accounting firm used by Dinglong, said that two of its employees were also on the flight.
https://wtmj.com/national/2022/03/22/wallets-ids-but-no-survivors-found-in-china-eastern-crash/
By Monday afternoon, the identity of one of the passengers missing, and most likely dead, emerged: Fang Fang, the chief financial officer of Dinglong Culture, a mining and resources company in Yunnan Province, where the flight began. Her company said that she was on the flight, but denied rumors that six other company managers were also on it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/world/asia/china-eastern-boeing-crash.html
-
They could say anyone was on that plane. At the speed it hit the ground it would require DNA analysis of every piece of tissue to identify the remains. I don't see the Chinese government doing that but I could be wrong.
Pictures show that the crash left a 65-foot-deep crater in a mountainside, shattered the plane and set off a fire in the surrounding forest.
More than 49,000 pieces of plane debris were found. It took two days to find the cockpit voice recorder and six days for the flight data recorder, which was buried 5 feet underground.
They always talk about how many pieces of plane they find but never mention the devastation it causes to bodies. I guess it gets too gruesome for some.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10826335/Chinese-plane-crash-caused-intentionally-cockpit-black-box-suggests.html
bob
-
If they were trying to cover up she was on the plane I doubt they would have released her name and then try to pass her off as a different person with the same name.
Besides people disappear in China all the time and for the most part the locals have learn long ago not to go looking. No need to crash a plane load of people.
-
*shrug* Can never tell with the pathological liars (communists). It was mentioned it was the spy FF in the days after the crash. I'm only now hearing it was a different CFO FF.
-
*shrug* Can never tell with the pathological liars (communists). It was mentioned it was the spy FF in the days after the crash. I'm only now hearing it was a different CFO FF.
Probably someone saw the name Fang-Fang on the passenger list and automatically assumed it was her since she is probably the only Fang-Fang they ever heard of.
I mean if someone named Joe Biden was reported dead I'm sure some would automatically jump on it as THE Joe Biden I'm sure there's more than one Joe Biden running around. Fang is not a rare name in China
I'm not saying 100% one way or another if it was her not. But why crash an entire airliner just to get her and then just to cover it up when they can just disappear her and almost no one would know or even care?
-
Probably someone saw the name Fang-Fang on the passenger list and automatically assumed it was her since she is probably the only Fang-Fang they ever heard of.
I mean if someone named Joe Biden was reported dead I'm sure some would automatically jump on it as THE Joe Biden I'm sure there's more than one Joe Biden running around. Fang is not a rare name in China
I'm not saying 100% one way or another it was or not her. But why crash an entire airliner just to get her and then just to cover it up when they can just disappear her and almost no one would know or even care?
I'm going with this as best probability for true fact.
-
Note the source. They have a habit of sometime full tabloid. Often right but they also far too often run wild with the slightest of evidence.
They're focusing on the co-pilot.
China Eastern Airlines crash: Expert says co-pilot ‘decided to take revenge’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vxq2xuEyCM
-
Still investigating
China says deadly 2022 plane crash still being investigated
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-11881345/China-says-deadly-2022-plane-crash-investigated.html