The fuel debate is about 4-5,000 lbs at most.
There is no debate, you are in a fantasy world.
Zeke, with respect, has zeroed in on the official Malaysian data and treated it as accurate, but there is every reason to doubt it.
Yes the official factual report, who would have thought of looking at the official report as source. The official report only has had the contributions from all the surrounding countries, and countries that participated in the search, it has had the engine/airframe manufacturer, FAA/NTSB, CAA/AAIB, ATSB, Imrasat, military and civilian radars data.
To ignore such an official report when it is the subject of significant peer review by experts in the field is the definition of a person without a sound mind.
The 108,200 lb figure on Wiki wasn't just made up, i.e. there appear to be at least two fuel uplift figures in circulation based on nominally credible sources.
Which is 49.1 tonnes. You are absolutely clueless on the difference between the uplift figure and and the flight plan fuel figure, the difference is simple, it is the taxi fuel. Taxi fuel is not included in trip fuel, we generally use 500-800 kg of taxi fuel for a wide-body. There is absolutely no doubt at all on the arrival fuel from the previous sector, and the amount of fuel uplifted. This is the reason why aircraft have a ramp weight and a takeoff weight, the difference is taxi fuel.
My point about the price of Jet 1 being around $120 a barrel in Q1 2014 has not been responded to - people are assuming one-third reserves, which is current airline practice, but with respect are overlooking the steep decline in the price of Jet 1 from Q3 2014, which in turn led to a relaxation of airline fuel policies. My opinion is that Malaysian's bean counters were keeping a close eye on fuel costs in March 2014.
The only person suggesting 1/3 reserves is yourself. They had the trip fuel to PEK, alternate fuel for HGH, and 30 minutes fixed reserve. Bog standard in accordance with ICAO procedures.
Radar data out of Chinese client states has to be viewed with suspicion when dealing with a shoot-down incident involving the PLA Navy. Thailand in 2014 was under heavy Chinese influence, ditto Malaysia and Indonesia, the latter two being Chinese client states. The Chinese are aggressive and have a lengthy history of interfering with regional neighbours. It is telling that two of the neighbours which China has invaded, Vietnam and India, do NOT support the radar data being pushed out by KL, Bangkok and Jakarta. Peking carries a lot of clout in Canberra too, since they are Australia's biggest customer for minerals. Their external intelligence service (CSIS) has been buying up or blackmailing Aussie 'pollies' for years, and arranged the assassination of Harold Holt,who sensibly wanted to increase Australian involvement in Vietnam.
More crap, no evidence here, move on.
Research overnight, in response to Zeke's request for more information on the radar systems at Car Nicobar (CarNic), has thrown up two articles by Indian aviation expert Captain A Ranganathan in The Hindu in March 2014. Captain Ranganathan had heard that the CarNic radars were switched off at night, like those of Port Blair. However, with respect, his information was probably out of date.
Produce the evidence.
Its radar had recently been upgraded, with its existing Rohini system being supplemented with the excellent Israeli-developed Arudhra Medium Power Radar, an advanced Active Phased Array system.
Where is the evidence that they have deployed a 4D radar to the island. Which of the radars on the Chinese/Pakistan boarder did they remove to put it there, and why would they more it from where there is a real threat ?
The Rohini radar is a truck mounted mobile radar with a maximum range of around 100 nm.
Painting a 777-sized target at 229 nm, Zeke's figure, which I accept with respect, bearing in mind that radar performance can vary, would easily be achievable by an Arudhra.
Its simple maths, the curvature of the earth prevents detection beyond that at that altitude. https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial
I don't see it shutting it down at night, although I am sure it did in sleepier times, when it just had a helo detachment.
All they have there is a couple of helicopters, anything is is done on a temporary transit or exercises which requires tanker support.
I believe the Port Campbell naval base, also part of ANC, also has air search radar. More to the point India's powerful Eastern Naval Command (ENC) had some 50 surface vessels in 2014, which are regularly deployed within the ANC sea control area. It is highly unlikely that no Indian warship was present in the ANC sea control area on the night of 7th & 8th March 2014.
What about the 12 friendly nations that were involved with the Thai naval exercises at the time ?
They also tracked the aircraft.
What has been proposed isn't a 270 magnetic or thereabouts course west of Penang, but a series of doglegs to avoid radar, via VAMPI, GIVAL, MAPSA, MINAJ (? for the last letter) and IGREX.
There was no avoiding radar, it was tracked on radar the very reason why we know where it went. It is also the reason we know your crackpot claim that it was shot down with a SAM in the south china sea is absolute rubbish.
This all burns fuel and points up a fatal flaw in the SIO theory, with respect: a flight-path avoiding radar requires more fuel than MH370 had remaining at the time of departure from the flight-plan even on the most generous figure and a flight-path taking the shortest, othodromic, route to the SIO from a turning point close to the Sumatran coast, with a fairly direct route from the SCS, would have brought MH370 within range of radar stations which did not paint it.
What was the distance flown, produce a number. Provide the evidence to support your claims.
BTW, you would think that Boeing and RR would have said something by now if it was impossible for the aircraft to fly that far with the fuel load it had ? Is there some massive conspiracy involving thousands of people at Boeing and RR along with the AAIB and NTSB who are also involved with the investigation ?