It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Beijing-bound MAS plane carrying 239 people missing as of 20 mins ago.

page: 377
181
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 01:25 AM
reply to post by Tallone

Maybe you should check those facts again before you spout off about them. Neither the 777-200 (which is what this plane was), or the 777-200ER can go 9,000 miles. The -200 has a maximum range of 5,240nm, and the ER has a maximum range of 7,725nm.

www.boeing.com...

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 01:37 AM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Exactly how is that range determined? If the range is used to determine what routes they could fly, then they would always underestimate the range.

I would guess it would be calculated using the max cargo, head wind( I think it's called that?), low altitude,- plus extra fuel in case of needing to land at an alternate airport.

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 01:38 AM
reply to post by Tallone

That is the 200LR, the 777-200ER has a reach of 14300 km, when fully loaded around 10500 km.
When an aircraft departs from say, KL it has enough fuel to fly to its destination with some reverse for an hour extra flight.
Although it is capable to fly a great distance, carry to much fuel means higher cost.
The aircarft is heavier then it should be and therefore uses more fuel.

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 01:43 AM
reply to post by Daughter2

It's determined by the manufacturer by calculating fuel burn of the aircraft. They don't take winds into account when determining range because you don't have any idea where the plane will fly until it's bought. The winds vary radically depending on where it flies. One day you'll see 10 knot winds, the next you'll see 150+ knots. So winds aren't taken into account.
edit on 4/11/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 02:38 AM
Double post

Deleted.
edit on 11-4-2014 by Tallone because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 02:59 AM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Zaphod58
reply to post by Tallone

Maybe you should check those facts again before you spout off about them. Neither the 777-200 (which is what this plane was), or the 777-200ER can go 9,000 miles. The -200 has a maximum range of 5,240nm, and the ER has a maximum range of 7,725nm.

www.boeing.com...

'ER' (is an acronym) = extended range.

You are incorrect and you ought take a good look at the information you cite before posting a link to call another poster out. Otherwise you reduce your credibility just a tad…

The 777-200 does not have the capacity of the 777-200ER. So implying they are the same is plain BS, isn't it? But you do seem to be posting misleading info here.

MH 370 is a 777-200ER (not the other one you as you assert, wrongly). I think you are purposefully feeding BS to the readers on this thread.

BTW the boeing link you post is correct of course but they are being conservative with their data. Nothing wrong with that. But just to repeat for those of us whose eyes glaze over when they see numbers. The Maldives lies 1709.5 nautical miles from KL, Malaysia. Easily within reach of MH 370 and still leaving the plane with plenty of fuel capacity on tanks not even half full ( and that's using your wrong estimate of the max range
). Or if you want to see a comparison with the original scheduled route. KL to Beijing is 2,339 nautical miles. That's right, the plane had even less distance to travel from KL to the Maldives than it did from KL to Beijing, exempting slight diversions around storm systems and passing fleets of UFOs or whatever.

But yeah, just to repeat from my post before; A boeing 777 can fly just over 9,000 nautical miles or 17,000 kilometers. That my friend is a fact!

Or if you prefer Boeing's conservative estimate knock off a 1000 nautical miles from that. Still more than enough range to take the plane from KL to the African coast! And as I said in that previous post, there would have been a lot more fuel in those tanks than status quo adherers on this thread have been wanting us to assume.

Here's a reality check for some posters. MH 370 (a Boeing 777-200ER) had the range to take it from KL airport to Dakar, in Senegal, some 7000 nautical miles distant, across Malaysia, the Indian Ocean, and across the continent of Africa to the other side!!!

edit on 11-4-2014 by Tallone because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 03:31 AM
reply to post by Tallone

So now Boeing lies about the range of the aircraft THEY make? God the claims made in thus thread get better and better. Try flying a plane farther than the range given and see how far you get with that. You might get a little more range, but certainly not 1,000 miles.

Whether it's a 200 or a 200ER, it still can't fly 9000 miles. The only version that can fly that far is the 777-200LR. THAT IS A FACT. To do that they added fuel tanks to the aft cargo hold.

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 06:01 AM

earthling42
reply to post by Xcathdra

No, after 30 days the signal will get weaker and weaker until the batteries are empty.

Ah that makes sense.. Thanks

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 06:52 AM
reply to post by earthling42

earthling42
reply to post by Tallone

That is the 200LR, the 777-200ER has a reach of 14300 km, when fully loaded around 10500 km.
When an aircraft departs from say, KL it has enough fuel to fly to its destination with some reverse for an hour extra flight.
Although it is capable to fly a great distance, carry to much fuel means higher cost.
The aircarft is heavier then it should be and therefore uses more fuel.

You are replying to Zaphod58 right?
Because you have quoted from the Boeing site linked to in that character's site, no? I have no argument with that. Boeing is being conservative with their estimate. It will travel a good 1000 km further as I said further above (good meaning in excess of 15300 depending on prevailing conditions load and other factors). The point I am making on the other page holds true. The plane would easily make it to the Maldives, and like I said could easily make it to Dakal in Senegal, the opposite coast of Africa, and that is flying straight across the Indian Ocean from KL.

[snipped]
edit on 11-4-2014 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 07:20 AM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Zaphod58
reply to post by Tallone

MMaybe you should check those facts again before you spout off about them. Neither the 777-200 (which is what this plane was), or the 777-200ER can go 9,000 miles...
www.boeing.com...

Here is MH 370. It is a 777-200ER and yes it can do a max range of 9000nm. Again. Boeing is being conservative in the technical specification page of theirs.
Here is AviationWeek

Read the line underlined in blue at the base of the pic. MH-730 is a 777-200ER and yes it will fly over 8000 nautical miles.

Anyway, all of that is in answer to your strawman argument. Because my original point was it could have EASILY made it to the Maldives and further.

This plance can fly from KL across the Indian Ocean across the African continent to land in Senegal and still have fuel to spare, not much but some! That is, given enough fuel was in the tanks - a distinct possibility.

This disappearance of MH 370 seems most likely to be the doing of a government, a military, an intelligence apparatus. It is clearly not the doings of one or a few men gone bad. It is far and above that. The sheer scale of the coverup, and the sheer arrogance in the way the spin has been dished out to the mindless MSN for us to consume mindlessly says this was a very big and well coordinated operation in the beginning at least. Getting the extra fuel into those tanks would have been easy. The plane was likely piloted by remote control, that is to say it was out of the hands of the Malaysian pilots sitting in the cockpit. It landed. After that who knows. Why do it? Your guess is as good as mine.

edit on 11-4-2014 by Tallone because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 08:52 AM
reply to post by Tallone

Yes it's a 200ER. Prove that Boeing is being conservative. If anyone would know how far it can fly it's them.

I never said it couldn't make the Maldives anywhere, but it's not going 8,000 miles, especially coming out of a hot climate area, with the load it had.

You claim Boeing is being conservative, prove it. Unless you pick up a hell of a tail wind, you're not going to fly farther than the range given. At least you aren't if you're smart and want to avoid lawsuits.

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:02 AM
reply to post by Tallone

I missed the post from Zaphod58, he replied faster then me, a was also doing some possible path's with Google that are consistent with the pings.
But you are right, the data i posted about its range come from Boeing

And yes it could easily have reached Diego Garcia with the amount of fuel they had, or Dakar in Senegal if it carried a maximum fuel load.
But, it must have been flying towards the satallite to get there, it did not, in fact, it had been flying away from the satallite after the ping which was received at 3:40am, this makes it unlikely that it flew to one of these places.

But then again, these satallite pings could easily and intentionally mislead us which means this plane will never really be found and retrieved.

The first part of the flight frome departure at 00:41 until the first ping at 02:29 was with a speed of atleast 450 knots, the distance is about 1050 miles.
The second part after 02:29 until 08:11 is about 2100 miles to the spot where they are getting those signals.
With the information about using more fuel, it must have been flying at a lower altitude and thus consuming more fuel while flying with a speed of 330 knots or 380 miles per hour.

edit on 11-4-2014 by earthling42 because: typo

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by Zaphod58

I've been following this story and thread from the beginning

We know MH 370 is a Boeing 777 200 ER, data obtained from Boeing 777 Wikipedia

"Typical cruise speed Mach 0.84 (560 mph, 905 km/h, 490 knots) at a cruise altitude of 35,000 ft (11,000 m)
Maximum range (at maximum payload) 7,725 nmi (14,310 km, 8,892 mi)

Operating empty weight 304,500 lb (138,100 kg)
Maximum landing weight 470,000 lb (213,180 kg)
Maximum takeoff weight 656,000 lb (297,550 kg)

Does anyone know how much 6000 NM of fuel would weigh and if the flight from KUL to PEK would use enough fuel so as to not exceed the maximum landing weight of 470,000 lb. I suppose the load in the cargo hold would also play apart in the aircrafts range too. Must need a lot of mangosteens to make 4 tons.

On April 2, 1997, a Malaysia Airlines -200ER named "Super Ranger" broke the great circle "distance without landing" record for an airliner by flying eastward from Boeing Field, Seattle to Kuala Lumpur, a distance of 10,823 nautical miles (20,044 km), in 21 hours and 23 minutes.

On November 10, 2005, the first -200LR set a record for the longest non-stop flight of a passenger airliner by flying 11,664 nautical miles (21,602 km) eastward from Hong Kong to London.[8] Lasting 22 hours and 42 minutes, the flight surpassed the -200LR's standard design range and was logged in the Guinness World Records.[

The 200ER is capable of flying great distances amd MH 370 had regulary flown to and from Europe

These are some of the flights undertook by MH 370, data obtained from Airfleets.net
AMS To KUL Distance : 6357 miles
FRA To KUL
KUL To PER
CDG To KUL Distance : 6484 miles

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by Tallone

...this was a very big and well coordinated operation in the beginning at least.

I agree with that, but not with

...it landed...

I said from the beginning that foiled or incompetent hijackers caused this airliner to crash into the ocean somewhere. I'm sticking with that. Given all of the known facts it is still the most likely answer and unfortunately we'll probably really never know exactly how or why.

Sooner or later debris and/or bodies will be found in some location not yet searched for whatever reason. But of course some will claim it was planted.

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by Gutman

Flying East, you have a tail wind. If you make the flight at the right time, with a strong enough tail wind, you can extend the range. I once had a Gulfstream III make a flight it couldn't make because of a tail wind. You can't count that as more than luck though.

However, that flight was out of Washington, not Malaysia. You can't make a flight that long out of Malaysia, with that aircraft type. Once you get to a hotter climate the maximum take off weight is reduced. This is why they had to block off 50 seats to allow for more cargo.

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 12:06 PM
I have a question for you all here.

I occasionally check out this place to look at little quakes.

Didn't notice this until this morning. The area of Australlia is blocked out.

Is this due to the search regarding this plane?

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 12:13 PM

crappiekat
Didn't notice this until this morning. The area of Australlia is blocked out.

Is this due to the search regarding this plane?
It's not blocked out for me, and besides, there's no reason to block it out due to the search. They don't want any active pinging or other noise in the search area, but earthquake detectors are passive so they won't interfere with the search.
edit on 11-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 12:19 PM
CNN had it's law enforcement consultant giving opinion whether 3 pings are enough to investigate the position and how it will work.

CNN it's pings not shots...

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 12:48 PM

This is from Wikipedia and it says the Boeing 777-200ER has a maximum range at maximum payload of 8892 miles. So if MH370 had full fuel tanks and not all the ficticious cargo (mangosteens) and passengers we've been told it had, it could have flown close to 10,000 miles!
en.wikipedia.org...

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by Mikeultra

Which is 7700 nm, which is exactly what Boeing says. Although you can't fly at maximum takeoff weight out of Malaysia, so it still couldn't have flown that far.

top topics

181