![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
James Robinson wrote:
a wrote: One has no idea how true this is, but for what it's worth, read on:. It's sensationalist garbage. The fact that the maintenance system transmitted for four minutes says that not only was the aircraft more or less in one piece during that time, but that the electrical systems were still functioning. If the tail snapped off as suggested, the aircraft wouldn't have lasted more than a few seconds at that altitude and speed. Indications are stronger that the failure of the vertical stabilizer was a consequence rather than a cause of the accident. Would it be possible that four minutes is how long it took the aircraft (or the remains of hit) to hit the water? That would be a 8750 feet per minute vertical speed, which seems a realist figure to me. Furthermore I am on the impression that the system is autonomous, thus could still function once the aircraft was broken apart (if so was the case). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another AirBus-320 question | pintlar | Home Built | 18 | November 7th 11 06:04 AM |
Stupid question about birds and planes | Peter Hucker[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 1 | January 2nd 08 06:05 PM |
airbus - Latest Plane From Airbus.jpg | [email protected] | Aviation Photos | 14 | June 26th 07 09:41 AM |
A question on Airbus landings | [email protected] | Piloting | 17 | July 18th 06 09:05 PM |
Question Regarding 9/11 Planes... | builderbos | Piloting | 28 | April 26th 04 11:33 PM |