Malaysian Plane Missing After Take Off

[GlockSpock]

[quote name="Oh Shoot" post="1126042" timestamp="1395104516"]No mystery about the Lusitania, hundreds of survivors too. - OS[/quote] Sure. A passenger boat being sunk by a sub is going to leave more survivors than an airliner struck by a SAM. Same concept if need be. Not saying that is what happened but it has just as much possibility having happened as many of the theories floating around. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

Sure. A passenger boat being sunk by a sub is going to leave more survivors than an airliner struck by a SAM....

 

What possible motive would anyone have for zapping a commercial airliner with a SAM without even publicizing it?

 

- OS

[TMF]

[quote name="Lumber_Jack" post="1125945" timestamp="1395088312"]in all honesty it may have been high jacked with the attempt to land it somewhere and instead its in the indian ocean somewhere[/quote] Most probable at this point, but not as much fun to speculate about. Since it is looking like they dropped down to a low altitude to avoid radar detection they may not have accounted for how that would affect fuel consumption? Also, it isn't probable that they would be able to cross into the airspace of India without being detected by radar or the half billion or so Indians who would have noticed a 777 flying at low altitude. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TerryW]

Flying on one engine....

 

 

I think I was told by my commercial flight instructor that a twin engine aircraft loses 65% available thrust on one motor.   The 15% extra loss is from drag from the aircraft slipstream isn't as streamlined and carrying a dead motor around. 

 

So, if the boy/boys up front shut one down they really won't save any gas and probably burn more.  Plus a jet engine burns a $hit pot of gas down low.  The 737-700 will burn around 4,400 lbs per hour at the service ceiling of 41,000 feet at .78 mach.  At 4,000 feet it burns around 8,000 lbs an hour at 250 knots .3 mach.

Jet fuel weighs 6.7 lbs per gallon. 

[Steelharp]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

[TMF]

Flying on one engine....

 

 

I think I was told by my commercial flight instructor that a twin engine aircraft loses 65% available thrust on one motor.   The 15% extra loss is from drag from the aircraft slipstream isn't as streamlined and carrying a dead motor around. 

 

So, if the boy/boys up front shut one down they really won't save any gas and probably burn more.  Plus a jet engine burns a $hit pot of gas down low.  The 737-700 will burn around 4,400 lbs per hour at the service ceiling of 41,000 feet at .78 mach.  At 4,000 feet it burns around 8,000 lbs an hour at 250 knots .3 mach.

Jet fuel weighs 6.7 lbs per gallon. 

 

So it's safe to say that if they lowered their altitude to avoid radar they significantly decreased their range... almost by half if the numbers for a 777 are near the same as a 737, right?

 

Now we're back to their range not being nearly as far as suggested in the media, and if you cut it back by half they never would have made it to the Indian coast, let alone any of the Stans, if they were flying low.  So they would have either crashed in the Indian Ocean after grossly miscalculating their fuel, or they would have had to land somewhere in SE Asia.

[Guest TankerHC]

Some Boeing engineers discussed it in a forum several years ago. Read it last night so will type what I remember.

The answer is no they wouldn't save any fuel. Due to laws requiring aircraft to be able to takeoff, land and fly on one engine, today's engines are grossly overpowered. On takeoff and in flight the 777 is run at 80 to 85% power. If a 777 loses an engine before the critical go/no go point they can still abort. If after rotate (one of you pilot's would have to explain after rotate since I don't have a clue what that means other than it apparently occurs after critical go/no go) then the pilot would push the other engine to 100%. The 777 would struggle but would get off the ground. With one engine out they would fly below 15000 and fly with engine at 100% and would lose 85% of fuel efficiency relative to flying at altitude.

What i took from that is trying to fly at low altitude on one engine they would have been guzzling fuel.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[TMF]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

 

Very interesting.  I wonder why this theory isn't getting airtime on the talking head stations.  Guess it isn't sexy like hijacking and piracy theories.

[peejman]

Some Boeing engineers discussed it in a forum several years ago. Read it last night so will type what I remember.

The answer is no they wouldn't save any fuel. Due to laws requiring aircraft to be able to takeoff, land and fly on one engine, today's engines are grossly overpowered. On takeoff and in flight the 777 is run at 80 to 85% power. If a 777 loses an engine before the critical go/no go point they can still abort. If after rotate (one of you pilot's would have to explain after rotate since I don't have a clue what that means other than it apparently occurs after critical go/no go) then the pilot would push the other engine to 100%. The 777 would struggle but would get off the ground. With one engine out they would fly below 15000 and fly with engine at 100% and would lose 85% of fuel efficiency relative to flying at altitude.

What i took from that is trying to fly at low altitude on one engine they would have been guzzling fuel.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

If you're ever on a plane that loses an engine on take-off, you won't think that other one is grossly over-powered. 

 

"Rotate" means the nose wheel leaves the ground and the plane begins to take off.  That's generally the point of no return unless the plane is on an exceptionally long runway. 

 

Yes, flying at low altitude burns through fuel at an astounding rate. 

[peejman]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

 

 

Party pooper.  :yuck:

[tnguy]

[TerryW]

Take offs are normally calculated for what they call a balanced field take off.  Balanced field take off. <---- I'm short on time or I would have typed that in my language.  We don't always want to take off at full power because it is much harder on the jet engines and when they engines are stressed at T/O power if they are going to fail, that is where it is more likely to happen, at the power reduction after full or very high power take offs. Rotate, V1 and V2 speeds are calculated on runway length, outside air temp, barometric pressure, altitude, wind and weight of the aircraft at take off.

[TerryW]

So it's safe to say that if they lowered their altitude to avoid radar they significantly decreased their range... almost by half if the numbers for a 777 are near the same as a 737, right?

 

Now we're back to their range not being nearly as far as suggested in the media, and if you cut it back by half they never would have made it to the Indian coast, let alone any of the Stans, if they were flying low.  So they would have either crashed in the Indian Ocean after grossly miscalculating their fuel, or they would have had to land somewhere in SE Asia.

 

 

I have no idea how much fuel they left with but in my 17 years flying the 737 I have NEVER taken off with full fuel. So max range could be a moot point.  Their range is going to be based on their fuel load at take off and I doubt, but maybe it was topped off with fuel.

[TMF]

I have no idea how much fuel they left with but in my 17 years flying the 737 I have NEVER taken off with full fuel. So max range could be a moot point.  Their range is going to be based on their fuel load at take off and I doubt, but maybe it was topped off with fuel.

 

The media wasn't calculating max range of the aircraft, but rather max range of this flight with the amount of fuel they had on board.  Of course, what they were estimating was that it would be traveling at 30,000 ft.  If that isn't the case then the range they estimated is greatly reduced. 

[TerryW]

The media wasn't calculating max range of the aircraft, but rather max range of this flight with the amount of fuel they had on board.  Of course, what they were estimating was that it would be traveling at 30,000 ft.  If that isn't the case then the range they estimated is greatly reduced. 

 

 

Oh ok. Good.... Glad to hear the media is getting that right...  Can you tell I'm not a news guy? lol

[hardknox00001]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

 

I think this article sums it up well.  One thing it didn't mention that crossed my mind was why they climbed so high.  If they had a severe fire on-board, the higher you go, the less dense the atmosphere and less oxygen is available to feed the fire.  It is possible that they climbed that high to try and extinguish the fire.

 

With the lack of "radical group x" claiming responsibility for a terrorist act, I would say that ship has sailed.  This article to me seems the most plausible at this point.  I would lay odds that it went down somewhere in the water on the way to Pulau Langkawi as this article states.

Edited March 18, 2014 by hardknox00001

[hardknox00001]

For you conspiracy theorists, here is another theory.

 

http://mh370shadow.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68

[TerryW]

I think this article sums it up well.  One thing it didn't mention that crossed my mind was why they climbed so high.  If they had a severe fire on-board, the higher you go, the less dense the atmosphere and less oxygen is available to feed the fire.  It is possible that they climbed that high to try and extinguish the fire.

 

hardknox,  I am not frustrated with you, I get frustrated with pilots without airline experience writing as if they know what they are talking about. 

 

There isn't anybody that has ever flown an airliner trained to go to high altitude to put out a fire.  An airplane is made of aluminum.  Fire and aluminum don't mix well.  I have always been trained IF you ever encounter fire in the aircraft you get the mo fo ON THE GROUND, even a road if you have to.  If the Wing Separation light comes on you no longer have a flying machine..  (There really isn't a Wing Separation light)

 

The author is not a commercial airline pilot.    Also, that pilot says things like,  "I instinctively knew".  No he doesn't, I sure don't and I sit in an airliner for 800 hours a year, every year for the past 26. 

 

I hate when internet experts that write as if they were sitting there...

Edited March 18, 2014 by TerryW

[Lumber_Jack]

[quote name="TerryW" post="1126501" timestamp="1395171515"]hardknox, I am not frustrated with you, I get frustrated with pilots without airline experience writing as if they know what they are talking about. There isn't anybody that has ever flown an airliner trained to go to high altitude to put out a fire. An airplane is made of aluminum. Fire and aluminum don't mix well. I have [u]always[/u] been trained IF you ever encounter fire in the aircraft you get the mo fo ON THE GROUND, even a road if you have to. If the Wing Separation light comes on you no longer have a flying machine.. (There really isn't a Wing Separation light) The author is not a commercial airline pilot. Also, that pilot says things like, "I instinctively knew". No he doesn't, I sure don't and I sit in an airliner for 800 hours a year, every year for the past 26. I hate when internet experts that write as if they were sitting there...[/quote] Thanks for your insight here TerryW. It certainly seemed plausible to me on the surface.

[TerryW]

Fire = Bad

 

Fire at altitude = real bad..

[hardknox00001]

Thanks for your insight here TerryW. It certainly seemed plausible to me on the surface.

 

Me as well.  I will stand down to your expertise.

[tnguy]

Fire = Bad
 
Fire at altitude = real bad..

Anyone else just get an image of Frankenstein's monster in an airplane cockpit?

[TerryW]

Me as well.  I will stand down to your expertise.

 

 

No please don't think that.  I am not an expert but I have sat in the seat for a while.  The kid that authored that article has flying experience but not jet airliner experience. 

[Guest TankerHC]

No please don't think that. I am not an expert but I have sat in the seat for a while. The kid that authored that article has flying experience but not jet airliner experience.

I have jet airliner experience. In the seat of a DC 10, 747 and multiple other airliners with several cockpit variations on each.

Based on my year's of MS FS experience my theory is that they flew into a black hole and no one knows what happened.



Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[TerryW]

Tanker at this point, you've got a good chance of being right. :-)