Originally Posted by
G0ULI
Concours77
Fair points, but the aircraft did strike the ground 380 feet past the embankment and back of an envelope calculations are sufficient to prove that this is possible and reasonable without invoking some violation of the laws of physics. The aircraft was in a relatively shallow descent through most of the curved flight path and it was only after the angle of the wings exceeded 60° that the wings stalled and gravity became the predominant force. The rate of descent was not constant.
Of course the aircraft was in nothing like free fall...
So 100 feet past the embankment in a vacuum, maybe.
That is what I wanted to establish, that the impact evidence is as observed. The flight path, not so much.
What do you make of the Lockheed experiment regarding possible conflict of expected airflows over the aileron, as influenced by the wing flap,
without its jackscrew?
What it says to me is quite interesting. Why remove the jackscrew? At first blush, to simulate a deformation of the wing flap that affected roll? We must assume they don’t care a fig about what happened post impact, so is their surmise that the flap jumped its canoes inflight?
Wouldn't The consideration of drag embellish my point, and serve to conflict with a greater distance from first impact?
Interesting?