Originally Posted by
RTM Boy
Surely that was obvious from the first photos of the crash site on day one; the very limited debris field and massive disintegration of the fuselage made it obvious that the a/c hit the ground at not far off 90 degrees to the perpendicular, at high speed considerably in excess of terminal velocity.
I don't find that at all "obvious." High speed? Probably. Vertical? Hardly.
Consider this photograph of the crash site - the only one I found that was taken from above ground level. I don't have enough points yet to post the image or a link to it, but you could find it here:
i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/03/12/00/10838788-6794233-Pictures_have_emerged_showing_the_scale_of_the_crash_site_fr om_a-a-14_1552350488610.jpg
(from a Daily Mail article about the crash).
It clearly shows a sharply defined impact hole, but with a sizable trail of small debris for hundreds of yards to the lower right side, indicating a considerable forward velocity. Also, the hole is NOT at all circular - it's much wider to the lower right side.
Also, although it's pedantic, I don't think "terminal velocity" is the right term here. Terminal velocity refers to a freely falling body - which an airplane under thrust is most definitely NOT. "High speed" is appropriate. Perhaps you meant "higher than limit speed" for a 737?
But even then, I don't think you can infer much about absolute speed from the photograph. Crashing an airliner into soft earth (which it appears from the multitudes of ground-level photos) will result in a large crater, no matter the impact speed. I would surmise that anything above a couple hundred knots would produce a similar crater, and similarly small bits of leftover debris.