SLF here and I have a few 'common sense' questions because I do not see a problem with the VS having come off with forward movement:
1. Would it be correct to assume that the plane did not fall quite like a brick, i.e. at a right angle, into the ocean?
2. That some forward momentum sheared the VS's attachments, these emerging as weak points at the moment of impact because of uncommon forces acting on it?
Thank you
1. BEA are, effectively, saying she went in "flat". So she could have flown like a "Branson Balloon", but not in a vertical alignment. They say she went in hard so certain things do make sense (and other "theories" disproven).
2. No, I'm questioning the report saying the VS came off in a forward direction based on the rear and centre mounts "existing". Surely, if the force was "forward", the rear mounting point would fail first as it would pull beyond it's stress point as it would be being stressed the most first. Maybe whoever typed up the report had brain fade for a minute?