I don’t get what that analysis tells us.
The mechanism of ripping off flapperon in-flight (as consequence of flutter) is different than the one caused by impact.
I still don’t get it. If you go so fast that you get flutter, you should leave a huge floating wreckage field.
Tom_Kenyon_MH370_Flaperon_Feasibility_FEA_Analysis_28Rev_1_2_29_pdf local copy
If you go so fast that you get flutter, you should leave a huge floating wreckage field.
Flutter can affect only one surface. E.g. if only a flapperon was affected, it would be teared off and the aircraft would probably spiral down before other parts would be subjected to in-flight breakup.
I didn’t mean in-flight breakup. I meant that to get flutter on any control surface, the aircraft would need to be going way above Vne. @pilot_dar knows more but probably 30-50% above.
Then it would break up upon impact with water.
Last time I read about this topic, they concluded from the flapperon condition that it was a carefully controlled landing.
Peter wrote:
Last time I read about this topic, they concluded from the flapperon condition that it was a carefully controlled landing.
The article attached claims the opposite – it says that that flapperon condition shows that it broke off in-flight rather than on impact.
