IG review says torn MH370 flaperon implies mid air break-up
- Share
IG's annotated image of the damaged 777 wing part
The Independent Group of scientists studying the MH370 disappearance thinks that the 777 flaperon found on La Reunion island was torn off the wing of the jet after it ran out of fuel and before it struck the ocean.
A member of the group, Michael Exner has published an analysis of the likely scenarios for explaining the damage seen on the part, which is now in France being examined in a military aviation laboratory in Toulouse.
The IG paper favours in-flight detachment because of the apparent lack of damage to its leading edge compared to the torn state of its trailing edge.
It says if the flaperon was on the wing when it contacted the water it would exhibit some compression damage on the leading edge, but almost none is apparent.
The paper says “this is much more consistent with the flaperon being torn from the wing while in flight and forced rearward by the airflow.
“The ragged tear along the trailing edge is indicative of flutter induced stress and ultimate fatigue failure. Not a break off due to high bending moments at impact.
“If the flaperon separated while still in flight, it indicates an in-flight breakup most likely due to very high speeds, and perhaps loss of hydraulic/electrical power power to the flaperon actuator post fuel exhaustion.
“This scenario is consistent with the steep spiral descent observed in the Boeing 777-200 simulator.
“If the in-flight separation is confirmed it would reduce the likelihood that the plane flew on (for) any significant distance past the seventh arc as some have speculated, and reinforce the theory that the point of impact is relatively close to [a point along] the seventh arc. “
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
It has been floating for a long time. I assume the leading edge floated uppermost as it holds the largest air pocket.
So the damage to the trailing edge could be caused by abrasion against rocks as it reached to coast of reunion? It is too early to assume that damage was caused in flight. There were reports that it had been floating near the beach for some weeks.
Spiral dives are nasty, especially if there was no hydraulic power to control surfaces. This increases the probability of an in flight break up and the likelihood that much smaller pieces of debris would be scattered over a wider surface area.
I’d assume that water damage would be the same for all edges of the flaperon.
It’s one hell of an overspeed to rip both points of attachment with it faired behind a wing.
Possible I guess, but to me, a ditching or the like, with some flaps out looks more likely.
Interesting that these guys are saying mid air break up. According to another person (Neil Hansford) it shows it was attached when the aircraft hit the water in a controlled crash:
“What it does show is that the aircraft has gone into the water in a controlled-type crash and as the engines have hit the water, they’ve sheared off and this part is straight behind one of the engines,” he told AFP. “There should be at least one other flaperon from the other wing (floating around).”
But he added that at this time “all you can say that it proves is that MH370 definitely crashed into the southern Indian Ocean and it also proves that the search area as identified by the Australian experts… is appropriate.”
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/australia-confident/2032632.html
So how does it float for over 1 year with a big hole in it ?
So how does it float for over 1 year with a big hole in it ?
Last time i checked aluminium was heavier than water
The trailing edge is shredded and therefore porous
There is a big hole on the side close to the leading edge and I assume this would be mirrored on the other side
So unless the flaperon is filled with foam, I can’t see how it would remain afloat for over 1 year
In 2009 Livefistdefence web site reported that “Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and Boeing today signed an agreement to work together for the production of flaperons for Boeing’s 777 series commercial jetliner.”
Furthermore it says “The 777 flaperon is a highly complex composite assembly that is instrumental in controlling the airplane’s maneuverability in flight.”
There has been much discussion on the web about whether the flaperon is constructed from metal or composite.
Based on the assumption that it is largely composite as stated above, I postulate that its TE was ripped off by the initial contact with the water, hence the ragged appearance of a typical composite failure, and then the flaperon was torn off its hinges at the LE due to the moment of the water loads when landing on the water. The flaperon then floated because of the several water tight compartments in a composite control element.
#7 Deano DD #8 Aero Engl Aviator
I made those observations 5 days ago:
Falcon 124: Controlled crash and the ELTs go off.
Ergo, highly unlikely it was controlled as those are exactly the conditions an ELT is intended to work for.
they would not work if the aircraft was upside down on impact nor if it hit full tilt on and ripped the antennae’s off the ELTs before a signal started going out.
Until definitive analyses is made its all a guess.
Could be have tripped off mid air (depends on if there was battery power to try to make it work and hanging out) and rest did hard impact and or variation of cartwheel impact spray8ng already damaged flaperon around and no crush damage.
Just have to stay tuned, hopefully more parts show up.
I heard this morning that the internal framework of the flaperon is constructed as a honeycomb structure so providing the top and bottom surfaces of the part are bonded to the outer skin it would have air in there permanently.
Until the part is looked at under a microscope, it will be impossible to determine how or what forces were placed on the flaperon.
Could have been nibbled by a shark for all we know.
In a previous thread about the 777, someone referred to the RAT. It is the “Ram Air Turbine“, deployed automatically to provide essential power. That may not include enough power to actuate the flaperon controllers.
True, its minimum power for minimum control surfaces to get the aircraft down.
I don’t know of the flaperon is a key item in that or not.
Spiral dive was proposed by the ATSB report of 26 June 2014, pages 33-35, however that report did not identify the real reason why a spiral dive was suspected.
The final two satellite handshakes 8 minutes apart came from the same location, or rather to be precise there was no Doppler shift between these signals. Since MH370 was not a helicopter a spiral dive is the only logical explanation.
That MH370 was in such a dive for 8 minutes infers this spiral developed from relatively high altitude. Long unresponsive flights terminated by a spiral dive are always characteristic of hypoxic flights.
The fact now that the flaperon seems to corroborate this demands a re-think by ATSB of many key assumptions that defined the underwater seabed search location.
For example a long hypoxic flight is inconsistent with claims MH370 turned west and made multiple turns through the Straits of Malacca around Sumatra.
If the Sumatra detour never happened then MH370 had greater fuel endurance and the engines were not fuel exhausted over the seabed search area.
In other words a hypoxic flight means MH370 flew further south. The ATSB’s objection to searching for floating objects seen 425nm further south was that MH370 lacked the fuel endurance. A hypoxic flight from IGARI rules out Martin Dolan’s favourite excuse for sitting on his hands.
It is bad enough that ATSB did not revise their model when debris did not was ashore on Sumatra in July 2014 as they predicted, but now as the tide runs out on their excuses they look like total buffoons.
Simon Gunson,
“as the tide runs out on their excuses they look like total buffoons”
That’s not really news is it,
The ATSB have frequently looked like buffoons during the search, especially since they’ve failed to ask the awkward, but necessary questions of the Malaysian Government & investigation team.?
The French don’t seem, at this moment, to be encumbered by such niceties…..?
Simon Gunson,
Whilst disagreeing with you about aspects of your theories,
I am in complete agreement with you that if,
as has been reasonably-well established,
the aircraft DID NOT foodle around turning back West when it ‘went black’, but in fact turned directly South,
it would totally alter the time the aircraft could have remained in the air & consequently how far South it was when it crashed.
Perhaps the French investigators will be astute-enough to review the ‘ping’ data in tandem with the revised aerial endurance to see if a recalculation will provide an alternative crash-site region.?
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.