Announcement

Collapse

The GaijinPot Forum Is Closed

Please join us on our new Facebook Group.
See more
See less

Top

Collapse

Booing Boeing

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by thefg
    except hes wrong in this case because a trebuchet type of mechanism of ejection would requires that the plane pivot from the front as it impacts the ground and the tail raise and arch forward. The plane didnt land nose first, and didnt pivot on its nose, the tail didnt arch forward.

    The proof of that is obvious - the tail was ripped off and the front structure of the plane is intact (from the crash)

    In other words - the plane couldnt have 'done' a trebuchet.


    No need to wonder if they were wearing seat belts, the fact is when you hit the ground at 150mph and large parts of the plane around you get ripped off you shouldnt be surprised if you end up outside the aircraft. When the plane decelerates from the tail hitting the ground people will be forced forward, if they are strapped in and their seats arent bolted to bits of floor that are no longer attached to the plane they may stay in their seats and inside the plane.

    Media love to use phrases like 'sucked out' or 'ejected' - no meaning.
    TheFG, you seem to know much about flight, much more than I.
    Are you The Flying Guy ?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by thefg
      except hes wrong in this case because a trebuchet type of mechanism of ejection would requires that the plane pivot from the front as it impacts the ground and the tail raise and arch forward. The plane didnt land nose first, and didnt pivot on its nose, the tail didnt arch forward.

      The proof of that is obvious - the tail was ripped off and the front structure of the plane is intact (from the crash)

      In other words - the plane couldnt have 'done' a trebuchet.
      Wasn't trying to claim his was right (or even partially right). Just don't think anyone on GP has the ability (expertise) to use cool sounding military terms and make references (either direct or indirect) to high tech weaponry, or explosives in just about any post regardless of the subject matter. Plus, he also almost always provides video or photos as a bonus.

      Is there anyway that you or anybody is ever going to be able to top this:

      Originally posted by edin日本
      Originally posted by Old Style
      Hey Edin日本, what do you think about that nuclear terror blueprint/ attack? How possible is this?
      http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/201...ts-iaea-warns/
      In Japan, very possible as the rentacops aren't armed and it doesn't take much to fab weapons. Thermite can be made from aluminum foil, steel wool and over the counter fireworks, C4 can be made from styrofoam, gasoline, motor oil, oil based play-do and firecrackers. Small kinetic firearms can be made from off the shelf items in your local DIY store... Give me US$10 million, the blueprints of a Gen 1-3 BWR, a team of 5 people, 30 minutes in which to work and I could assure you of a very hot prefecture and possible contamination of a major city.
      Throw in the occasional reference made to multiple uber sexy and successful asian girlfriends and apparent connections to mysterious Japanese men who have an affinity for total body tattoos who owe him favors and you have a combination that just ain't ever going to be beat. Not even by somebody considered to be a genius by his peers who has multiple post-graduate degrees, his own company and at least 38 patents which have made him lots and lots of money.
      Last edited by Shimi; 2013-07-10, 10:20 AM.

      Comment


      • I thought Edin's explanation made sense. Plane hits tail first, whiplashes to nose down, and then whips again to eject a la a catapult.

        I don't know if that actually happened, but it looks good on paper.

        What exactly is the difference between a catapult and the french named thingy???


        BTW, the pilot was on a training run, being trained by an instructor pilot on his first assignment.

        Short sell Asiana, baby.

        Comment


        • Interesting tidbit on the radio today. The host claimed that four people went out the back of the aircraft. The two girls who were killed as well as two crew. If that's true, then it should have been the crew that were in the rear jump seat. He also claimed that those two crew had minor injuries. I can't imagine being strapped into a jump seat that falls out the back of the aircraft at 100 miles per hour and only having "minor" injuries.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by kurogane View Post
            What exactly is the difference between a catapult and the french named thingy???
            I believe a catapult typically uses tension. The trebuchet uses a giant weight attached in such a manner that it can fall straight down. (no loss of energy due to angular path). It turns out a trebuchet that has wheels on it actually flings objects further than those without wheels.

            Comment


            • Naruheso. Thanks RU and FG.

              Interesting info about the crash there. I thought somebody mentioned above that there was a catapulting of passengers. Sounds horrible, regardless.

              Poor, poor Pinkus.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by thefg
                Occams razor my dear fellow. The tail hit, broke off taking some passengers sat at the back with it. No need to involve 15th century french weaponry
                True, but that's what makes edin日本 so special. He has the ability to spice up any post with references to 15th Century French weaponry regardless of the subject matter. That's not a skill you can learn; it's something that is god given.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by thefg
                  The tail hit, broke off taking some passengers sat at the back with it.

                  Only problem is, there are no seats behind the rear emergency exit, except the crew jump seats. The section of tail that broke off is way behind the rear emergency exit.

                  I'm still having trouble understanding how the two girls went out the back. Were they standing in the galley? No possible way the crew would let them do that.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by thefg
                    when your decelerating that fast human bodies quite literally bounce all over the place.

                    Heres a video of the crash.. No 15th century weaponry was involved just a big chunk of tail section getting ripped off
                    Isn't it obvious that some top secret government agency (perhaps something from Area 51) used some top secret stealth technology that makes 15th century French weaponry invisible (maybe even something utilizing "extraterrestrial" technology)? That's why you can't see it in that video? What other explanation could there be?

                    But seriously, am I the only one who finds it's pretty amazing that many many more people did not lose their lives after seeing the pictures, etc. of that wreckage? Regardless of what the true cause of the accident was, the fact that only 2 (or maybe 4) people were killed out of the 300 or so aboard seems to say that the cabin crew did their jobs properly when it really counted, doesn't it? Would it be too much to say that they are kind of heroes?

                    The South Koreans do seem to be taking this accident quite personally though.
                    Asiana crash felt as point of shame in SKorea, where corporate profiles tie to national psyche

                    Comment


                    • Tail section got ripped off but didn't take any of the passenger seats with it. Looking at a diagram of the cabin shows the toilets and galley missing along with the tail section, APU and aft black box location. A slightly better video than the one you listed shows the aircraft going nose up just before the seawall, pitching forward, rolling over and then sliding along on its belly.

                      And since you seem to have a reading comprehension problem–possibly due to dyslexia, I suggested that the effect is similar to that of a trebuchet in that an object is first accelerated in a rearward direction and then hurled forward.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR67XIUBvMg

                      Comment


                      • Have a close look at the video from 27 seconds to 30 seconds. I think I see the plane rearing up and then falling back hard on its left. Perhaps that is when the 4 people at the back were ejected?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Brown Cow View Post
                          Have a close look at the video from 27 seconds to 30 seconds. I think I see the plane rearing up and then falling back hard on its left. Perhaps that is when the 4 people at the back were ejected?
                          Aren't there any cameras on the runways?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Old Style View Post
                            Aren't there any cameras on the runways?
                            Very possibly but they haven't put the footage on You Tube yet.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Brown Cow View Post
                              Very possibly but they haven't put the footage on You Tube yet.
                              They're everywhere these days, so it would seem logical from both a safety and security perspective.
                              Probably should mount a few on the outside of the planes as well while we're at it.

                              Comment


                              • Another thing about both videos of the crash. Is the plane on anything like the correct descent path at all or is it just kind of creeping along in level flight, very close to the sea?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X