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

reply to post by Zaphod58


Just to correct you there, B777ER needs 11.100feet at Max Take Off Weight(MTOW) and both of Kuala Lumpur's runways are over 13.000feet, so well withing the (MTOW) of flight 370.

reply to post by UKGuy1805


Reread that. That's based on a 27 degree temp, no wind, and a flat runway.

At high altitude, or hot temperatures, you physically can not take off at MTOW because of the air density.

This is not a new theory or really a contribution to existing discussions but maybe someone is interested to see how it looks inside a MAS 777-200?

Once a year (excluding 2014...) I travel from Frankfurt to KL and back. Flight EDDF -> KLIA is usually flight MH 005, KLIA -> EDDF MH 006. So, since 2001 I spent a lot of time inside 777s (well, when my memory serves me right, at least 2001 and 2002 MAS operated with 747s on these routes and one time we flew with a 767 - not sure about that). I never felt unsafe or had the impression of poor maintenance of the planes. Everything was smooth all the times. Until 2013.

This shot is from 2013:

After seeing the condition of the right wing, this was the first time I felt not well on board a MAS flight.

2012:
Right wing again


Cabin interior


Right wing in flight


Map from the personal entertainment system


Cabin at night


It feels very weird, that now one of these 777 is missing since a month, especially because there is a chance, that I was sitting exactly in the missing 9M-MRO together with my family, maybe even with the same crew (or just some of them).
On board MH370 was my wife's friends cousin - which does not make things easier.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Just checked the Boeing 777ER Operating Manual and it states-

Minimum Takeoff requiremnet at MTOW Is -
For a Standard Day + 27deg F at Sea Level = 11.800feet

For a Standard Day +27deg F above 2000feet AMSL = 16.000feet +

Kuala Lumpur is 70feet/21m AMSL and its runway's are 13.000feet +

reply to post by UKGuy1805


Notice the temperature required for that runway length. +27 degrees F. The average temperature in March in Kuala Lumpur is 92F. The hotter the temperature the less air density. The less air density, the more speed required to get airborne, and the longer runway needed. You can not get a 777 airborne from there at MTOW.

Waiting for the commercial salvage people to be allowed in. That will get physical results. Not saying all the government workers are not doing their best but making money get results.

One scenario for the controversy of the "Fifth Ping", could be malfunction of the beacon electronics in the box(es). It could be that not only would the sound level of the ping drop off, but once the batteries become sufficiently discharged, then the circuitry that they power may also malfunction causing changes in frequency, garble, and intermittent action. Just a thought, and wonder if they took that into account, or it was dismissed as not relevant.

Never know, because they like to keep the detail of most of the action to themselves, and what gets translated back through the media is diluted and redundant. I think they would be better off if they kept the world on the level they are on. You never know who might come up with something more important than what they have discarded. This is not a Military operation.

reply to post by charlyv

I think they would be better off if they kept the world on the level they are on. You never know who might come up with something more important than what they have discarded. This is not a Military operation.

Absolutely. The world cannot predict who or what group of minds may solve a problem. Power and position prevent this in the human race.

roadgravel
reply to post by charlyv

 

I think they would be better off if they kept the world on the level they are on. You never know who might come up with something more important than what they have discarded. This is not a Military operation.

Absolutely. The world cannot predict who or what group of minds may solve a problem. Power and position prevent this in the human race.

But they are keeping the world on the level they are on. They are spewing out all lies.
Wow nearly 380 pages and counting. Well done.

Nice headline by the muck called known as the British tabloids, they will sprout anything to sell a paper!

reply to post by gisolator


Could you say which dates in 2013 and 2012 those pics were taken?

Cheers.

EDIT: No matter. I checked this source here and there's only two frankfurt/klia flights listed for the 9M-MRO craft. One in 2003 and one in 2006.

reply to post by Mikeultra

Make that nautical miles, different to statute / land miles. Nautical miles contain almost 1000 feet extra.

But yes, anyway the main point I am making here the past few days is this plane could easily have made it clear across to the other side of Africa. It could have landed. So long as there are no conclusive debris (confirmed from the plane) and bodies we cannot really conclude it crashed, as much as some of us may like that idea a whole lot better.

reply to post by Tallone


Except that you have a fuel issue. You can't take off from Kuala Lumpur at MTOW for one thing.

For another, airlines don't fill the plane to capacity with fuel for every flight. They calculate the minimum needed, and add a reserve to that. Except for very long flights, or first thing on medium haul flights it's rare to see a commercial flight full of fuel.

Going West you also have to account for a head wind, which can go from light to fairly strong depending on the region. That means less range too, depending on what the winds are.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Zaphod58
reply to post by Tallone

 

Except that you have a fuel issue. You can't take off from Kuala Lumpur at MTOW for one thing.

For another, airlines don't fill the plane to capacity with fuel for every flight. They calculate the minimum needed, and add a reserve to that. Except for very long flights, or first thing on medium haul flights it's rare to see a commercial flight full of fuel.

Here is how I see it. You can interpret the data in two possible ways.

1. With a critical eye open to any hypothesis based on logic, reason, and material conditions.

2. Or accepting without criticism everything the official channels give you. In an all things being equal kind of way. In this case, the plane would have been loaded with the usual required quantity of fuel for a scheduled flight to Beijing, the new route entered into the aircrafts computer system could only have been entered in the cockpit itself, and a whole lot of other details that do not conflict with the usual set up, the norm, and so on. If you take this second position, then you would naturally accept uncritically the information we get about satellite output, the pingers, the photos.

If you take 1. You must consider the possibility a state, the military, the intelligence agency are involved in a cover-up. Because this would then enable the plane to have a different load of fuel IF that was required by those who seek to divert the plane to a different landing zone from Beijing. You would also then consider a number of other possibilities which BTW are not entirely impossible, all of them coming down to the one awful truth those authorities we trust lied to us. Lied to us about the lack of data, the satellite output, the location of the plane itself.

If you take 2. You will begin all of your analysis with a much much more limited collection of data. You would for starters go straight to the southern Indian Ocean as the PRE-determined (by you) final resting place of the jet. You would then be working backwards whether you realised it or not. Because this would point to the culpability of the pilots, the ground maintenance, the Airline, the Malaysian government itself.

No. 2 is not the way to do analysis when you are looking for the truth. It is the way to do it when you want to achieve a pre-determined conclusion.

To look for truth, to gain real knowledge, you must necessarily begin by considering all possible evidence, you need to go looking for it, and not constrain yourself to whatever it is you are given / fed.

It really all comes down to which theory you support. I would like to trust the official voices of authority. But looking at the evidence and recent (and not so recent history) we can't do that. Not without maintaining a highly critical eye, and leaving one's ego behind you always helps.

Keep in mind we have been lied to by authorities at the very highest level several times before. Think about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Think about the whole array of lies behind the Iraq invasion in 2003. These are matters of public record now, those involved (many not all) have admitted the truth. Anyone who thinks things operate any differently now are fooling themselves and naturally enough looking for other fools to keep them company. Might sound harsh but that is the way I see it.

reply to post by Tallone


And taking no. 1 doesn't change the fact that the laws of physics still apply. You can not believe anything the media or government says, and be so own minded your brain falls out. But that's not going to change how aircraft fly, or how far they can fly.

You talk about logic and reason, well no matter how you look at it, the aircraft can't fly out of Kuala Lumpur with enough fuel to get its full range. Unless of course it took off without passengers or cargo.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Zaphod58
reply to post by Tallone

 

And taking no. 1 doesn't change the fact that the laws of physics still apply. You can not believe anything the media or government says, and be so own minded your brain falls out. But that's not going to change how aircraft fly, or how far they can fly.

You talk about logic and reason, well no matter how you look at it, the aircraft can't fly out of Kuala Lumpur with enough fuel to get its full range. Unless of course it took off without passengers or cargo.

Alright. I will bite. What makes KL so special a B777-200ER could not fly, let's say 6000 nautical miles? All I am talking about is a diameter less than that.

FYI I am saying it is possible for that aircraft to easily fly from KL to the coast of Africa (Dakar, Senegal for arguments sake) fully loaded with passengers. Not that MH 370 did, mind you. Just that it is possible.

reply to post by Tallone


Because, as I've said about four times in the last couple of pages, the air density due to the temperature.

A 777-200ER at maximum takeoff weight requires an 11,100 foot long runway. That is at 27 degrees F, with the air conditioning off, no wind, and no incline to the runway.

The average temperature in Kuala Lumpur in March is over 90F. That means the air isn't as dense, due to the heat. That means the air over the wing needs to be moving faster over the wing to get the same amount of lift as in the cooler air.

To do that, the aircraft needs to be moving faster. That means more runway. A lot more runway. More than the 13,000 feet available at Kuala Lumpur.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Long haul flights usually depart at late night from KLIA. Temperature then is around 24-26C. Maybe you have to include the tropical air humidity (>80% relative) into the calculation? Not sure how much this affects the air density / lift ratio.

reply to post by auroraaus


Thanks for looking this up! The one in 2006 might be close. I'll try to find the old tickets later and check.

reply to post by gisolator


That's still 75F. They can carry more weight, but still not max weight. That's why this flight had 50 seats blocked off. They took the weight saved by not having those passengers, and added cargo.