Associated Retired Aviation Professionals

E-Mail to NTSB

Date: Wednesday, 23-Aug-00 11:48 AM

From: Concerned Citizen          
To:   Loeb, Bernard            \ Internet:    (
cc:   Clark John               \ Internet:    (
cc:   Dickinson Al             \ Internet:    (
cc:   James Hall               \ Internet:    (
cc:   Mayer David              \ Internet:    (

Subject: Your Hearing - Climb Scenario

At Tuesday's hearing, Dr. Loeb said that "physics" explained the alleged climb of TWA 800.
Maybe Dr. Loeb should read all of the attached from a qualified person, Ed
Zehr, as to the possibility that the 747-100 climbed several thousand feet.
Every aircraft professional that I have consulted with agrees with Ed Zehr,
and has totally discounted the climb theory as nonsense. These professionals
either built the airplane or flew it, including the very aircraft, N93119.
To a person, they all said the plane would only manage to climb for a few
seconds before stalling. For Dr. Loeb to suggest that "physics" suggests
otherwise is either a display of ignorance, or deception.

You know that the Boeing Company immediately issued a disclaimer upon seeing
the CIA video.

The statement below is from a concerned aviation professional who actively
participated in the building of hundreds of 747s:

        "No aircraft as large as the B747 could have done anything but stall and
descend, when confronted with the loss of its second most major aerodynamic
section - the nose.
        "There are two reasons for this.
        "First, as others have aptly pointed out, the center of gravity would have
shifted aft of the wings, causing the remaining airframe to compensate by
rotating on that center to a tail down configuration.
        "When that happened - as that happened - the engines would all have then
gone into a compressor stall configuration, as the air would have been
rushing past the inlets, causing air starvation or rarefaction in their
compressor sections.
        "Upon this stall configuration, there would no longer be any usable thrust,
and quite likely one or more of the engines would have experienced a flame
out condition, in consideration of both the current altitude, and attitude:
the air at 13000 feet is nowhere as near as dense at sea level, and the
recovery of a stalled engine would have required a more direct, head-on
airflow, or one which benefitted an increased airflow.
        "The attitude alone would have slowed the airframe considerably, and have
resulted in its eventual loss of altitude, simply because there was now no
air under the wings. The wings are the prime surface which make an airplane
fly. Merely pointing them in any particular direction will not make the
airframe to which they are attached go in that direction.
        "The attitude of the total airframe, in consonance with the thrust vector
is what makes an airplane go in any particular direction. Depriving the
airframe of that consonant quality, will lead only to failure.
        "With a loss of thrust, the airframe would simply have begun to drop tail
down, and proceeded to roll to one side, and have begun its descent.
        "None of this mentions that the aircraft nose, having separated from the
main section, would have taken all control of the engines and every control
surface with it, and have posed an absolutely insurmountable aerodynamic
quandary: Without the previous CG, and with no predetermined preset
conditions governing the flight laws of the control surfaces, every aspect
of flight would now be at the whim of whatever wisp of air happening upon
the airframe.
        "If, in the most propitious circumstances, the engines had all managed to
default to a 'flight idle' condition, that is, about 30 percent thrust,
there is no way on this earth that that 747 would have gone anywhere but
straight ahead - assuming the ludicrous by neglecting the the extreme of air
turbulence as a result of the open hole where the forward section was - or
straight down."

Stop trying to disinform the public.  You should at least be honest enough
to admit that many professionals disagree with this theory.

Home - Last Updated: