USMCmech said:
Those people who think a shoulder fired Missle shot down an airplane flying at 13,500 ft and 10 mile offshore need to check their facts. The stinger missle has an effective range of 3-4 miles, and 6,000 ft if memory serves. Getting a hit is very dificult requireing a lot of training and skill.
The advertised "effective range" is against a high-speed tactical aircraft that is taking evasive action and deploying flares. The maximum range would be a more appropriate consideration for a large target that is flying at 270kts in a straight line.
The Stinger is not the only missile out there, either. The Russian SA-14 Strela, for instance, has a max altitude of 20,000'.
Who said the missile(s) were fired from shore? One radar track showed a surface target that was stationary until the time of the explosion, and then headed
out to sea at more than 30 knots. It was never identified.
Even if it had hit an engine, the 2.5 pound warhead would probably at worst knock off an engine with some shrapnel damage to the wing. Hardley the instant destruction that occured. IIRC a Hawker was hit by an SA-7 somewhere in Africa and was able to return to land, same deal for the DHL A-300 in Iraq.
It's a common misconception that a missile fired from below would home in on an engine. The seeker in the missile just sees a "blob" of heat, and goes for the center. In the case of the 747, the center of the heat signature would be the center of the plane, namely the exhausts of the three air conditioning packs- which happen to be located below the center wing tank.
A missle fried from a Navy ship could have hit and caused the damage that resulted. However, for this to be true no one from the ship in question (100+ people) has come forward to admit what happened. No guilty concionce, not book deals, ect. Add the hundreds of people who would have to be part of the cover up, and you might as well start talking about the fake Apollo Moon landings.
Agreed. An accidental Navy shootdown is not likely due to the hundreds or even thousands of people who would need to keep the dirty secret.
Many people maintain that jet fuel won't burn easily, much less explode if subjected to a simple spark. However everone overlooks the fact that the tank was not full and was pressurized.
Jet-A vapors just aren't that flammable at most temperatures, and jet fuel won't burn vigorously unless it is subjected to violent agitation and a mist forms. The residual fuel in the center wing tank was just warm from the sit on the ramp, and it was just sloshing around as the plane climbed. Pretty benign stuff.
The tank was very slightly pressurized by ram air. So little that the effect can be discounted.
I've worked inside the center fuel tank on a 747-200 and there are plenty of wires that can chafe and eventually cause a short.
Compressed kerosene vapors + a shorted wire = big boom
Wires which by design all carry low voltage unable to produce a spark. It's possible that high voltage shorted to the low voltage wires somewhere outside the tank and created a spark inside the tank, but even then, it's doubtful the mixture would even ignite. Experiments have suggested that the mixture of vapors and air would not be flammable. Again remember that this was not gasoline, it was kerosene. Much less volatile.
Some convincing fuel vapor experiments, and lots of other fascinating evidence, is available
Here.
