# Re: Galileo Day

Ian Goddard (Ian@Goddard.net)
Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:23:31 -0500

I have to blame myself for not having more effectively translated the CIA scenario, I assumed it was know more than it is.
Respondents don't understand what it is
so we're all talking past each other.

We're not talking about a plane that was on a forward/horizontal vector and that translated into a downward vector (but keep in mind that horizontal and vertical velocity are independent, but that's not a matter here). The CIA scenario says that the plane shot upwards 3,200 feet in 20 seconds after the nose came off. Drawing a graph finds that's an angle of attack around 16 to 18 degrees.

At 10:51 PM 2/15/99 -0500, Michael Lorrey wrote:

>Not necessarily. A plane can be stalled and still be moving forward at high
>velocity. It is the angle of attack which matters when it comes to lift, not
>speed. Once it blew in half, the front section was front heavy and acted
like a
>lawn dart, translating its forward speed into downward speed.Calculate in its
>forward velocity (probably around 300-400 mph) while climbing, being
translated
>over by the change in angle of attack to downward velocity....

IAN: Horizontal velocity is independent of vertical velocity, what that means is that you don't translate forward velocity into downward velocity. Basic kinematics, but again, not a factor in the CIA scenario.

Speed does play a role in lift. For
example,tilt a wing at any angle at
0 mph, and it gets no lift. Give it
some forward speed, and it has lift.

The front end blew away, and the mid-to rear sections got rear heavy causing a pitch up, which the math shows will cause a fatal stall in under five seconds, but the CIA says it caused the noseless jet to shoot upwards looking like a rocket.

Witness say that the plane rolled and fell like a rock, which is exactly what happened to PAN AM 103 after it lost its forward section.