[Peetwo]

Ben calls HOKUM (in other words BOLLOCKS..   )! - On US academics MH370 'no debris', vertical dive theory.

MH370 gets another dose of bad science and poor reporting

Ben Sandilands | Jun 12, 2015 8:37AM |


The laughable graphic that comes with the latest MH370 claim

Somehow, a group of mathematicians have managed to come up with a claim that MH370 dived head first into the south Indian Ocean and remained intact.

Their ignorance of the structural strengths and weaknesses of airliners and the evidence available from similar impacts is as shocking as the lack of editorial depth in papers that publish such rubbish.

When the mass of a jet airliner makes a high velocity impact with a body of water the structural integrity of the windscreen visors and the thin cylinder of the pressure vessel that is the cabin structure is ruptured and totally destroyed.

Both internally and externally. The water is rammed up through the cabin toward the tail and the walls have already been compressed and broken. Flesh and clothing is torn from the bodies of those who if alive are dead within a split second.

The hideous damage inflicted in crashes into water mimic very closely those of impacts with the ground, or buildings. Examples include the end of 2014 AirAsia crash in the Java Sea, the belly flop damage sustained by Air France AF447 in 2009, and the Silkair mass murder and suicide flight into the Musi River estuary near Palembang in Indonesia in 1997.

The deceleration measured by the flight data recorder in the Air France crash  into the mid Atlantic peaked at more than 32G. Some of those found floating on the surface had been cut in two by their seat belts.

Silkair was definitely a vertical dive. As the photo shown below indicates, the jet was torn to pieces.



That 737 required the pilot to have been in active control of the jet until impact, as jets do not ‘naturally’ enter into or follow a sustained dive when fuel runs out. Rather, they execute a series of abruptly variable arcing descents, or a spiral, until impact, which is what the official inquiries into MH370 believe is shown to have occurred during the last aircraft initiated ‘ping’ to an Inmarsat satellite, when was incomplete when it suddenly stopped, apparently on contact with the water.

(There was a subsequent attempt by the satellite to reconnect with the aircraft, to which there was no response.)

The learned mathematicians story seeks to answer why no floating debris was found.  Therein may be a real story.  About a week after MH370 vanished on 8 March 2014 on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people onboard, satellite image scrutiny began to find what looked like a floating debris field SW of Perth.

The haste with which the Australian managed aerial search was switched to the NE remains variously a matter of a complete bungle, or something more sinister, keeping in mind it took and continues to take direction from the Malaysian authorities, who were later found to have lied unashamedly about what they knew about MH370 from the moment the public became aware the flight was missing.

The unwillingness of Australia to query the direction and integrity and information it received from Kuala Lumpur in relation to MH370 is a very big festering issue, as often reported here in Plane Talking yet ignored by the same media that report the sort of clap trap found in this piece of editorial garbage.

There are hard stories to do about MH370, and easy ones, like the one being peddled as click bait in today’s papers.

MTF...P2

Addendum: Courtesy of Victor Iannello 

Victor Iannello, June 9, 2015

Here are my comments on “Malaysia Airlines Flight: MH370: Water Entry of an Airliner” by G Chen, C Gu, PJ Morris, EG Paterson, EG Patterson, A Sergeev, YC Wang, T Wierzbicki (2015) and the referenced paper “Impact Damage of the Challenger Crew Compartment” by T Wierzbicki and D Yue (1986):

1. Chen et al. predict a fracture failure mode resulting in the rupture of the fuselage and wings for a vertical speed of 22 m/s (43kn) when the plane hits the water. Certainly the vertical speed greatly exceeded this value for a near vertical entry into the water, resulting in a global failure of the structure. Therefore, by their own analysis, MH370 would have experienced a global structural failure with a near vertical entry.

2. Chen et al. claim that because the surface pressure reached 6 MPa and the yield strength of aluminum is 324 MPa, there was no local failure of the aluminum. In truth, the surface pressure and the tensile stresses in the aluminum are far from equal! Wierzbicki and Yue, for instance, found that a surface pressure of 1.2 MPa resulted in local tearing as the aluminum skin was elongated between the support rings to failure. (Do Chen et al. really believe that the skin of a B777 can survive a surface pressure of 6 MPa = 60 atm = 880 psi?)

3. Neither paper analytically addresses the buckling failure of the thin cylindrical shell. Chen et al. acknowledge that this failure mode can occur at low impact velocities based on NASA experiments with a true aircraft. Wierzbicki and Yue also acknowledge that this mode may occur at lower impact speeds than for the other modes considered, but at least partially justify ignoring this mode because of the presence of the tiles on the Shuttle. Obviously, there are no tiles on the skin of a B777.

In summary, the paper by Chen et al. cannot be used to justify the lack of debris with a near vertical entry into the water for the following reasons:

1. Using their own methodology, any reasonable entry speed will result in fracture failure and global failure of the structure.

2. Their predicted surface pressure would result in local tearing of the skin. Chen et al.’s assertion that there is no local failure because the predicted surface pressure is less than the yield strength of aluminum is incorrect.

3. Chen et al. completely neglect analyzing the buckling failure mode without justification.

TY Victor...

Victor also informs me that Prof Chen will be responding to questions posed from himself & others..