Originally Posted by lederhosen
Clandestino I am seriously confused about what you are trying to say
That's because you have never met captain Dudley or anyone of his ilk... smooth-talking, very convincing and stupefyingly ignorant if you happen to know a bit about issue being discussed.
Originally Posted by lederhosen
Are you saying AirRabbit does not understand aerodynamics and is telling old wive's tales?
How in the world could I possibly know whether AirRabbit understands aerodynamics? I don't know (and don't care either) who AirRabbit is, all I have and have referred to is his alternative analysis of QH90 accident. Some of the points he made are so out of sync with the real world that it would be tragic if real pilots hold them to be true. First issue with QH90 was very primitive (but legal at the time) FDR, which did not record attitude or power. In AirRabbit's alternative view on the accident, holes left by primitive recording equipment are filled by conjecture, yet that CVR recorded both pilots clearly pouring their derision on the de-icing procedures during taxi-out is conveniently omitted.
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
Opinions differ as to what pitch angle would have been required to get into the stall buffet – but they range from 22 to 24 degrees of pitch.
Such a blatant mix-up of pitch and AoA I find hard to comprehend but then I was the lucky one, flying unstalled at +90° pitch and being stalled at -60° before my TT went into three digits.
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
the airplane should have been able to fly on one engine at 100% power
With clean wing, it would. NTSB is pretty clear on that.
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
In that any additional weight due to ice accretion seems not to be the answer, why did the airplane stall at 24 – 30 knots above stalling speed?
Weight of the ice being significant factor is myth dispelled during first hour in winter ops groundschool. so far so good.
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
In my opinion it was because of the pitch attitude of the airplane.
Wrong!!!! Issue is not pitch but lesser Cl max, higher Cd and lesser AoAcrit which is not due to...
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
the outboard portion of the wings sufficiently deformed by leading edge ice accretion
...but rather upper wing skin contaminated by ice! Top of the wings is the most critical surface for contamination on any aeroplane!
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
I believe that once this crew pushed the throttles forward with the intent to takeoff, they were doomed.
They could have aborted. The B727 you are so concerned about would have gone around. Happens every day. Very seldom makes headlines.
I suspect there still isn’t a consensus.
How do you make consensus with someone obviously unable to understand the accident report? Why would there have to be consensus with such a personae?
Don't trust NTSB blindly but at least make an effort to understand what they are saying. You'll find their analyses correct far more often than not.