Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 82

Kevil · Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:07 pm

Quoting art (Reply 97):
it crashed much further north

This corresponds to the witness of Mike McKay. I am the same opinion the MH370 crashed in the South China Sea near the IGARI waypoint. The flaperon could drifted to the Reunion Island from South China Sea trough Sunda Strait and follow Equatorial sea currents west of Java.

art · Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:36 pm

Quoting Kevil (Reply 100):
Quoting art (Reply 97):it crashed much further north

Not me saying that. No problem though.

747megatop · Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:29 pm

Quoting Kevil (Reply 100):
I am the same opinion the MH370 crashed in the South China Sea near the IGARI waypoint

Then the wreckage would have been found & moreover the aircraft would not have sent pings for 7 hours after dropping off radar.

Kevil · Tue Sep 01, 2015 8:07 pm

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 102):
Then the wreckage would have been found & moreover the aircraft would not have sent pings for 7 hours after dropping off radar.

"Kevil",

I wrote what I thought might help the search but within two days of my email being leaked the search in the South China Sea was called-off. On the basis of the (belated) primary military radar readings coming to light, the search was then moved to the Andaman Sea. I think the South China Sea search was called-off prematurely and as such I would agree with your assessment. Acting on my sighting, the Vietnamese sent out one flight only (six days after MH370 disappeared) and then were told to stop looking.

I have been hoping for some evidence to prove that is was not MH370 I saw, but unfortunately there has been no proof yet.

Mike McKay

Pings reception does not exclude the MH370 crashed in the South China Sea in the area of seventh ring (the same area mentioned by Mike McKay) where the plane or part of the wreckage with SATCOM transmitter could remain floating for some time.

747megatop · Tue Sep 01, 2015 8:54 pm

Quoting Kevil (Reply 103):
where the plane or part of the wreckage with SATCOM transmitter could remain floating for some time.

Nice fiction. A satcom transmitter minus all the associated electronics miraculously floats for 7 hours and transmits!

. I won't be surprised if i hear - that an intact aircraft with engines running floated in the South China sea transmitted pings for 7 hours and then got kidnapped whole by aliens

Kevil · Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:15 am

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 104):
Nice fiction. A satcom transmitter minus all the associated electronics miraculously floats for 7 hours and transmits!

The SATCOM Honeywell MCS-6000 has two 12 Volts 7 Ah backup batteries which is enough power for pings send each hour by Low Gain non directional antenna.

jpetekyxmd80 · Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:55 am

Oh my God, are you still going with this utter nonsense?

The coup de gras is you think this 777 crashed and broke up in shallow, heavily travelled waters within 100 miles of many shores and you think the first trace of it is an impossible flaperon journey to Reunion 16 months later? Holy hell. Wake up dude. None of what you say makes even the smallest, minutest amount of sense.

[Edited 2015-09-01 22:56:01]

PlaneInsomniac · Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:47 am

Quoting na (Reply 98):
http://www.focus.de/wissen/technik/s...zort-von-mh370-vor_id_4916166.html

The outcome of German scientists. They put 2 million virtual parts into the computer and let them drift based on data of the Indian Ocean of the past 16 months. If the flap is indeed from MH370, afterthis simulation it crashed much further north.

This sounds like a major development, and I am somewhat surprised it is not getting picked up by the international media. Geomar is a very renowned oceanography research institute, and those scientists sound convinced that the flaperon cannot possibly have come from anywhere near the current search area:

"MH370 crash becoming more and more mysterious - experts were apparently completely wrong":
http://www.stern.de/panorama/weltges...gliche--absturzstelle-6429608.html

In fact, they think it likely came from 3500 km (!) further north.

na · Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:22 am

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 107):
This sounds like a major development, and I am somewhat surprised it is not getting picked up by the international media. Geomar is a very renowned oceanography research institute, and those scientists sound convinced that the flaperon cannot possibly have come from anywhere near the current search area:

"MH370 crash becoming more and more mysterious - experts were apparently completely wrong":
http://www.stern.de/panorama/weltges...gliche--absturzstelle-6429608.html

In fact, they think it likely came from 3500 km (!) further north.

One thing needs to be added, they are still researching further into it, as so far they only have taken the currents into account, not wind a waves. The currents however are the most important defining aspect, so I do not expect a massive modification of Geomar´s current results.

YoungMans · Wed Sep 02, 2015 12:02 pm

The veracity of the satellite data which led to the current search area must not be doubted or even questioned.
This was made clear to me, on these threads, in no uncertain terms.
Now we have it that the opinion of a German research team is considered a major development when it puts the MH370 crash site some 3,500 km further north.
Can these contradictions be reconciled?

Has there always been a silent belief (by a substantial group) that the satellite data could be false? I wonder ....
For example, combine this new information with the words of Tim Clark, that he doesn't believe that MH370 is where they are looking for it, and it all takes on a new meaning again.
It adds to the mystery, it certainly doesn't make it any clearer.

One also wonders about the barnacles ....
Are they as old as they ought to be?
Can one tell whether they are from tropical or more cooler waters?
What about them anyway? There is no news on them ....

Quoting Kevil (Reply 103):
[....] the Vietnamese sent out one flight only (six days after MH370 disappeared) and then were told to stop looking.

This remark is still a little concerning.
I can remember that at the time I myself thought that the authorities were far to eager to stop searching in response to that sighting.
As for the flaperon supposedly drifting from the South China Sea all the way to the Reunion Islands?
It does sound incredibly unlikely.
Then again, whilst the indications are that the flaperon is off 9M-MRO, there is no absolute confirmation of that yet.
At this stage, literally, it could be anybodies, set adrift from anywhere; perhaps from 3,500 km further north of the current search site, as the German team seems to have worked out. Isn't there an island nearby, somewhere?
One wonders why it should take so long to confirm unequivocal for the part to be off 9M-MRO.
People happen to be on holidays..!? Hmm ....

Nachtigall, ick hoer Dir trapsen ..!
(This last one can't be translated; it's for the benefit of the German contributors.)

Kevil · Wed Sep 02, 2015 12:27 pm

I asked the Czech Technical University, Faculty of Electrical Engineering in Prague to verify the Inmarsat calculation and I got their preliminary answer. The experts wrote to me "it is very problematic. Doppler shifts are very small and can be explained by the oscillator stability of the receiver, transmitter and by satellite and airplane movement. Excel calculations seems not to be credible. It is a question if the position was not determined by another means. New Inmarsat satellites are using aerial array and this would be possible."

mandala499 · Wed Sep 02, 2015 2:36 pm

Quoting Kevil (Reply 89):
Unfortunately http://adrift.org.au/ does not have data for the South China Sea.

Therefore your theory cannot be validated by that site.

Quoting Kevil (Reply 105):
The SATCOM Honeywell MCS-6000 has two 12 Volts 7 Ah backup batteries which is enough power for pings send each hour by Low Gain non directional antenna.

First... please re-read the following:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 74):
It has both the LGA and HGA. Now, back to your idea of "airplane floating" "several pieces" and "still pinging".. the satcom set up is that if you have the left main AC bus unpowered, none of the satcom would work. Sure the LGA can be DC powered... however, the LGA still need the SDU, RFU, LGA-HPA and LGA-LNA/DIP to be powered... and those boxes are powered by the left main AC bus.
So "floating in several pieces until 8am" is discounted. End of story.

Second...
the antenna needs to know what frequency it is to send the ping on... it needs the SDU for that.
Ping commands are issued by the SDU, and needs to go through the RFU... it needs to go through the High Power Amplifier... (HPA)
Any acknowledgement of transmissions inbount to the aircraft will be responded by the SDU, which needs the SDU and the LNA...
Therefore, it WILL NOT work, nor will it send pings or acknowledge pings, or even be able to receive calls requests without the SDU. Now... what is the SDU powered by again? Oh yeah, the Left Main AC Bus.

Kevil, if you do not accept this, then you are just waffling utter garbage.

747megatop · Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:18 pm

Quoting Kevil (Reply 105):
has two 12 Volts 7 Ah backup batteries

Which again miraculously floats for 7 hours while very other piece of debris including seat cushions, bodies etc. sink like a stone and nothing gets washed up on shores nearby. MH 370 stolen by the aliens theory is more believable.

YoungMans · Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:29 pm

What exactly allows a flaperon to float?
Does it have watertight compartments or are the materials lighter than water?
How strong are the watertight compartments? If that is what made it float for that long ....
Would they have been buckled and crushed at a certain depth, i.e. loose their flotation?
What can be the processes of relative strong linkages breaking off and not cause much damage to the panel as a whole?
Would one have not expected at least some substantial damage from counteraction, i.e. where the flaperon was pushed against something so that the linkages could in fact break, or get ripped away?

Edit: Correct spelling

[Edited 2015-09-02 14:32:22]

WingedMigrator · Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:18 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 113):
What can be the processes of relative strong linkages breaking off and not cause much damage to the panel as a whole?
Would one have not expected at least some substantial damage from counteraction, i.e. where the flaperon was pushed against something so that the linkages could in fact break, or get ripped away?

Aerodynamic flutter could do it. This flaperon may have found itself with no hydraulic pressure in a high speed spiral dive, experiencing violent oscillations. The pushing would have been from the air flow. There is substantial damage: the entire trailing edge was torn off.

YoungMans · Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:34 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 114):
Aerodynamic flutter could do it. This flaperon may have found itself with no hydraulic pressure in a high speed spiral dive, experiencing violent oscillations. The pushing would have been from the air flow. There is substantial damage: the entire trailing edge was torn off.

Thanks for that. I can relate to that albeit on a big 4WD I had years ago. The steering wheels (front) went into such violent oscillations (on a normal road) that I thought the linkages were going to break.
Only slamming on the brakes saved the day.
Of course one cannot do that with an airborne aircraft.

What would make a flaperon float for so long, though?
Do they have sealed compartments?
Seems unlikely because aircraft are regularly up and down in the air, with substantial pressure fluctuations.
Or are they compartments filled with foam that would keep out water and stiffen the part at the same time?
Put the question differently, would the experts expect the flaperon to have floated for that length of time?
(Disregarding for a moment how and why it got to where it was found.)

Edit: spelling

[Edited 2015-09-03 03:37:29]

lancelot07 · Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:26 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 115):
Do they have sealed compartments?
Seems unlikely because aircraft are regularly up and down in the air, with substantial pressure fluctuations.

It seems to be divided into compartments (for structural reasons), not necessarily sealed. If the material is light, the part can remain buoyant even with some water inside. Pockets of air can keep water out.
I guess the long time afloat is not surprising.

BaconButty · Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:32 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 115):
What would make a flaperon float for so long, though?
Do they have sealed compartments?

Honeycomb construction.

oxymorph · Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:39 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 114):
Aerodynamic flutter could do it.

Sure, it's possible. BUT, here we are once again confronted with explaining away another of the many 'coincidences' of MH370. From the diversion timing at handoff, to the route flown, to Z's rants, to the Anwar verdict that morning, to Malaysia's odd behavior etc...

And now we have (ostensibly) only ONE piece of debris turn up 17 months later. And this one piece happens to be a flaperon with a more or less pristine leading edge. LOL.

Almost everyone I have spoken to (other than certain IG members, who have a vested interest in the 'flutter' theory) have told me that this looks to be a flaperon separation from a low speed, low impact event...otherwise known as a ditching.

Hopefully the BEA can settle this not so trivial matter in the coming days.

As for the 'coincidences', well, they never end. Z's flight sim screen grab of a plane on a runway surrounded by water. His love for gliding (he para-glided as a hobby until he was injured during an accident...per the FI).

Titania · Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:59 pm

It is now confirmed that the flaperon found on Reunion Island a few weeks ago definitely belonged to MH370. Link below in French, it reproduces the official news release by the France's authorities.

http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/mon...ec-certitude-au-mh370_1712325.html

EDIT: this news site keeps being updted and the complete original text has been cut.
Another link with the original full text of the French authorities is here:

http://www.msn.com/fr-fr/actualite/m...de-la-malaysia-airlines/ar-AAdUC1E

[Edited 2015-09-03 09:10:37]

lancelot07 · Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:23 pm

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 118):
a low speed, low impact event

iirc, this is how AF447 was described.

Quoting Titania (Reply 119):
It is now confirmed that the flaperon found on Reunion Island a few weeks ago definitely belonged to MH370.

very good!

TheRedBaron · Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:28 pm

Well with the confirmed flapper belonging to Mh370, we know know for sure:
The plane did not land
Was not high jacked to a remote location.
Broke apart in some kind of accident.
That it ended up in water
That the part drifted for months and may have biomass to know its path.
Most probably it went down west of the Peninsula.
There are (sadly) no survivors.

No aliens are involved or 5 dimension breakups.

That is it... I am missing something?

TRB

WingedMigrator · Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:30 pm

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 118):
And this one piece happens to be a flaperon with a more or less pristine leading edge. LOL.

The trailing edge damage will tell the story of the failure mode: in a ditching scenario the loading will have been asymmetrical (top surface in compression, bottom surface in tension), while in a flutter scenario the cyclical loading will have stressed both top and bottom surfaces in similar fashion. We can infer that the trailing edge was missing from the day of the impact, since barnacles grew on it--the trailing edge was not pounded off in the surf at La Reunion.

I'm confident that the BEA investigators have already established the failure mode of the trailing edge. The whole flutter versus ditching question will be settled definitively when that information is revealed.

JoeCanuck · Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:57 pm

I think the hinge points will tell us more as much as the trailing edge. They will show the exact angle of the hinge when the flaperon got torn off, which will tell us the position of the flaperon.

But it is also used as a roll device so that might throw a spanner in the works.

Aaaaaaaarrrggggghhhh. Every time I think of something, I also come up with a bunch of stuff to contradict it.

Just keep looking until you find it guys, no matter what.

747megatop · Fri Sep 04, 2015 3:00 am

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 121):
I am missing something?

Are you missing something?...well how about the conspiracy theorists who could (and will) poke hole in the conclusions that you just listed which were known facts even 12 months ago.

Folks who don't want to believe it won't do so even if facts are before them. For example, one of the conspiracy theorists could come up with "someone did land the plane somewhere, broke off the flaperon, grew barnacles on it and threw it off the Reunion coast for someone to find.

". The fact that the French authorities only confirmed that the Flaeperon belonged to MH 370 but did not confirm how it got there in itself doesn't help and thus conspiracy theorists would have a field day!!

TheRedBaron · Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:18 am

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 124):
someone did land the plane somewhere, broke off the flaperon, grew barnacles on it and threw it off the Reunion coast for someone to find.

I agree that some theories in this long and never-ending thread are downright ridiculous, but lets be honest it almost could (big could) have been anything the CT have thrown, until the flaperon was recovered. with that small piece of evidence we can (thank God) cross out a lot of wild speculation.

There are lot of questions, even now with the evidence the water short circuit and fire in the cockpit is still a infinitesimal possibility but its posible ...thankfully theories about Aliens, E.T.´s, Highjacking, bermuda triangle and such will be gone... I hope marine biologists and aeronautical savvy experts will shed more light on MH 370 so possibilities can be narrow down.

TRB

breiz · Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:25 pm

Thanks to this flaperon investigation, I now know that this particular part of the B777s is actually produced by Airbus.
Small world.
It is nice to see that despite the fierce competition show put up by A & B, they do collaborate when it matters.

lancelot07 · Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:51 pm

Quoting breiz (Reply 126):
Thanks to this flaperon investigation, I now know that this particular part of the B777s is actually produced by Airbus.

I understood that it was produced by a subcontractor working for both A and B, but not by Airbus.

BaconButty · Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:30 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 127):
I understood that it was produced by a subcontractor working for both A and B, but not by Airbus.

It was manufactured in Seville by Airbus Defence and Space (DS) curiously enough. An Airbus Subsidiary, Premium Aerotec, manufactures that rear pressure bulkhead for the 787 as well as parts for the 737 (and does R&D work on behalf of Boeing). That makes more sense, since in spite of being wholly owned they're running it at arms length and trying to make it into a tier 1 supplier a la Spirit.

I'm sure there must be more examples, I'd be interested to hear of the reverse being true.

AirlineCritic · Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:48 pm

Hmm. A Boeing crashes and the only part that can be found and identified is manufactured by Airbus? Wow.

Thunderboltdrgn · Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:52 pm

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 128):
I'm sure there must be more examples

I know that SAAB's aeroplane division produces parts for both Airbus and Boeing.

abba · Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:17 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 109):
Has there always been a silent belief (by a substantial group) that the satellite data could be false?

The satellite data are most likely not false. However, there can be a systematic error in the calculations no one has yet identified that could potentially move the crash site in one or the other direction. It is always nice to have several independent studies indicating the same area - or at least pointing in the same direction.

Kevil · Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:03 pm

An interesting article MH370: Is it really a mystery or a hide-and-seek conspiracy?
From the text: The SATCOM terminal on MH370 had an internal battery

jpetekyxmd80 · Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:25 pm

"2. The arc from the final ping crosses South China Sea

The arc from the final ping crosses the South China Sea but this part of the arc has been excluded from the ongoing search.
"

OMFG. What part of common sense do you not understand?

lancelot07 · Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:41 am

Quoting abba (Reply 131):
The satellite data are most likely not false.

Yes, but the satellite data have given us only the 2 arcs, and the choice of the southern arc.
Everything else has been derived from assumptions about speed, range, etc. - assumptions that might be wrong for some unknown reason. And even if they are correct the possible area is very large, and only a tiny percentage of it has been searched until now.

mandala499 · Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:01 am

Quoting Kevil (Reply 132):
From the text: The SATCOM terminal on MH370 had an internal battery

From the damned manuals... SATCOM needs Left Main AC Bus to be powered to work... including pings and transmitting the AES ID, and all the other junk that's needed in a handshake to tell the satellite that the satcom onboard is "ready".
You need the left main AC bus to be powered for the satcom to even have exchange of data that precedes a satcom call (even those that is not picked up/answered), which cannot be powered by the batteries.
If the transmissions are done by the LGA, the BFO would be totally different from what we saw.
If the transmissions are done by the HGA, then sorry, it needs beam steering and therefore needs a data feed from the aircraft system to tell it where the aircraft is, and the attitude orientation of the aircraft in order for the BSU to be able to lock on the satellite... THIS, cannot be done on an aircraft in pieces.

It does appear to me that you are just trolling by pretending to be a broken record repeating itself ad nauseam...
You need to be able to distinguish facts from opinion...

Kevil · Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:27 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 135):
From the damned manuals...

I tried to contact Honeywell in my country to ask if the MCS-6000 SDU powered by internal (or main) battery can answer pings by Low Gain Antenna. Unfortunately they do not have the aerospace division here. Could someone try to ask Honeywell Aerospace in Phoenix, AZ ?

"Don’s signal analysis of the three attempted phone calls suggests that the high-gain antenna might not have been working properly, perhaps because the antenna was not steered correctly."

[Edited 2015-09-05 00:31:23]

mandala499 · Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:51 am

Quoting Kevil (Reply 136):
I tried to contact Honeywell in my country to ask if the MCS-6000 SDU powered by internal (or main) battery can answer pings by Low Gain Antenna.

I sent an email to Honeywell satcom a few years ago, and instead of answering my question regarding one of their manuals, they referred me to a satcom airtime reseller and completely oblivious of my question. So, go ahead and try.

And feel free to ask whoever. The Boeing 777 manual states, you lose Left Main AC Bus, the whole satcom system dies. Having worked with satcoms, no the batteries in the SDU is not to power itself to answer pings by the low gain antenna.

Now, what powers the LGA HPA? Batteries? No. How about the LGA LNA/Dip? Batteries? No again.
You need the SDU, the RFU, the LGA HPA, and the LGA LNA/Dip as well as the LGA itself for the LGA to be able to answer those pings... and, once you lose primary power supply (the AC into the SDU), the battery power is used to shut the system down and finish off any data packets in transit and tell the satellite to stop sending anything else (that is billable) until it's back on (to prevent a hung data session that can result in a runaway data usage bill)... it's not there to power the damn system for hours on end.

Quoting Kevil (Reply 136):
"Don’s signal analysis of the three attempted phone calls suggests that the high-gain antenna might not have been working properly, perhaps because the antenna was not steered correctly."

In the email Don sent me, he suspects that the HGA was not in the right orientation to provide adequate coverage to the satellite... Not that the antenna was not steered correctly.

The phone calls is channeled through the LGA automatically if the HGA is not functioning correctly.
You keep flipping from LGA to HGA like a swing voter trying to make up his mind after every single TV campaign ad.

bikerthai · Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:50 pm

Of all the honeycomb panels on the aircraft, the flaperon seems to have the best chance to stay afloat the longest. Being thicker than the flaps and less aspect ratio, it would have a better vollume to weight ratio there for more boyancy than the other parts or panels.

bt

747megatop · Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:25 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 135):
THIS, cannot be done on an aircraft in pieces.

I am willing to be that your logic will be challenged saying that the aircraft came down intact and floated for 7 hours with both engines running LoL

. Even with that far fetched theory it still doesn't explain how the aircaft transmitted in arcs 1 through 7 each of them being approx 1 hour (approx 400 to 500) apart which puts it at 7*500 = 3500 miles (give or take 500 miles) away from the point of disappearance..which puts the aircraft far far away from South China sea!!

[Edited 2015-09-05 14:14:53]

mandala499 · Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:05 pm

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 139):
Even with that far fetched theory it still doesn't explain how the aircaft transmitted in arcs 1 through 7 each of them being approx 1 hour (approx 400 to 500) apart which puts it at 7*500 = 3500 miles (give or take 500 miles) away from point of disappearance..which put the aircraft far far away from South China sea!!

Oh don't jump the gun on him just yet!

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 139):
I willing to be that your logic will be challenged saying that the aircraft came down intact and floated for 7 hours with both engines running LoL

Spoofed signals make more sense than his theory, even in the face of the flaperon confirmation!

*yes, it's the weekend!*

TheRedBaron · Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:37 pm

Maybe MH370 had some special equipment that allowed to do this... (sorry for being disrespectful but I can't take it anymore)

TRB

747megatop · Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:01 am

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 141):
Maybe MH370 had some special equipment that allowed to do this... (sorry for being disrespectful but I can't take it anymore)

Well, well, just when we thought we had all the bases(theories) covered...LoL..i hadn't thought about it. The submersible angle kinda explains it...the airplane went submersible just off the west coast of the Malay peninsula and transmitted those pings...could very well explain how the plane went dark from the radar scopes

. In all seriousness..i am also being sorry for disrespectful.

gzm · Sun Sep 06, 2015 2:20 pm

The Thunderbirds also had a space station,Thunderbird 5, and they could track down everything. Disrespectful or not, they were at least 50 years ahead of their time (1972). As I have said, there is nothing else to do now but wait. Fasten your seat belts and wait for the resolution of the mystery. The flaperon is quite a find and it has stories to tell. We could all prove to be 100% wrong...

Kevil · Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:57 pm

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 139):
I am willing to be that your logic will be challenged saying that the aircraft came down intact and floated for 7 hours with both engines running LoL .

It happened already. "Except for the rear part of the airframe, the broken portions of the fuselage sank rapidly." See Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961

Thunderboltdrgn · Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:25 pm

Quoting Kevil (Reply 144):
It happened already.

No it didn't.

Nowhere in the Wiki-article or the article it uses as a source does it say anything about 7 hours.
It is of course possible that smaller parts (like the flaperon) could float for a longer while if there is allot
of trapped air inside but most certainly not an entire jetliner in the middle of the ocean and even if it would
I doubt the engines would work particular well being under water.

[Edited 2015-09-07 12:30:18]

747megatop · Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:07 am

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 145):
I doubt the engines would work particular well being under water.

LoL, i wouldn't be surprised if some folks said that engine would work well underwater too. I have seen almost everything on this thread!

oxymorph · Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:41 am

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 146):
LoL, i wouldn't be surprised if some folks said that engine would work well underwater too. I have seen almost everything on this thread!

Actually, tests have demonstrated that flawless function can be achieved when engines are spooled at 1/2 atm (15ft) in nutrient-rich equatorial waters.

I'll be posting videos of my simulation for said tests at a later date.

jcxroberts · Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:17 am

And engine failure + fire on a Boeing 777 today, after we were told it was impossibility.

777Jet · Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:36 am

Quoting jcxroberts (Reply 148):
And engine failure + fire on a Boeing 777 today, after we were told it was impossibility.

During takeoff. The plane is on the ground. The pax are safe. Everything is still with us. The plane did not deviate from cruise 40mins into the flight and just vanish and still remain missing 18 months later to date...

BTW MH370 had RR engines, this BA bird had GE90s - but of course, both planes were 777-200ER birds - there must be a connection!

MH370 flew on for 7hrs after whatever happened near IGARI occurred. I doubt this BA 777 would have been able to remain in the air for much time at all - luckily whatever happened occurred before V1...

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net